KRISHNA SINGH vs NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

THIS revision petition has been filed by the Petitioners/Complainants against the impugned order dated 8.1.2008 passed by the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 328 of 2006 - The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Krishna Singh & Anr. by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum dismissing review petition was set aside and matter was remanded for deciding review petition on merits.

BRIEF facts of the case are that Petitioners/Complainants filed complaint before District Forum and learned District Forum vide order dated 18.2.1999, allowed complaint. Later on, OP/Respondents filed review petition on the ground of fraudulent act committed by the complainant. Learned District Forum vide its order dated 6.3.2006 dismissed review petition. OP/respondents filed appeal before learned State Commission and learned State Commission vide its impugned order while allowing appeal, set aside order of District Forum and remanded back the matter for deciding afresh on merits against which, this revision petition has been filed. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and perused record. None appeared for the respondents.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners submitted that District Forum rightly disallowed review petition, but learned State Commission has committed error in allowing appeal and directing District Forum to decide review petition on merits; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside.

PERUSAL of record reveals that learned District Forum vide order dated 2006 dismissed review petition filed by the OP/respondents. Learned State Commission while deciding appeal observed as under: "In this case on the facts the matter of C.B.I. investigation was also brought to the notice of the learned District Forum, it was also alleged that Pankaj Kumar, the nominee was a major per policy bonds etc. There is no doubt that Consumer Protection Act does not empower a District Consumer Forum or even the State Commission to review its own order. But in the light of above quoted and relied ruling of Hon ''ble Supreme Court, we are of the view that learned Forum ought to have recalled its order and set aside the ex-parte order and should have posted complaint case for hearing on merits and by not doing so committed error ".

LEARNED State Commission rightly observed that Consumer Protection Act does not empower District Forum or even the State Commission to review its own order, but allowed appeal in the light of the Hon ''ble Apex Court judgment reported in AIR 2000 (SC) 1165 - United India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. RajenderSingh in which it was held that where an order is obtained by practising fraud, every Court/Tribunal has power to recall such order. LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on (2011) 9 SCC 541 - Rajeev Hitendra Pathak and Others Vs. AchyutKashinath Kakekar and Another in which it was held that except National Commission District Forum and State Commission have no power to review its own orders. In the light of aforesaid judgment it becomes clear that learned District Forum had no authority to review its earlier order in any circumstance and learned District Forum has not committed any error in dismissing review petition, but learned State Commission has committed error in allowing appeal and setting aside impugned review order and directing learned District Forum to decide review petition on merits. Order passed by learned State Commission is liable to be set aside in the light of Apex Court ''s judgment in Rajeev Hitendra Pathak and Others (Supra).

CONSEQUENTLY , revision petition is allowed and impugned order dated 6.1.2008 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No.328/2006 - The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Krishna Singh & Anr. is set aside and order of District Forum dated 6.3.2006 is affirmed with no order as to costs.