AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
4 paragraphs · 278 wordsIN this revision by the opposite party, challenge is to the order dated 31.10.2003 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Orissa, Cuttack.
ADMITTEDLY, on a complaint filed by respondent/complainant, the petitioner-Insurance Company was directed to pay amount of Rs. 3,95,420/- by the order dated 31.1.2003 by the State Commission. Thereafter, respondent filed review application being No. 602/2003 seeking modification of the order dated 30.1.2003. It was alleged that there was an error apparent on the face of that order inasmuch as while assessing the said amount, the State Commission did not take into consideration some of the valuable articles in sports shops, the total value whereof was Rs. 1,36,450/-. Application was contested by the petitioner. However, the State Commission while partly allowing application directed the petitioner to further pay sum of Rs. 50,000/- by modifying the said order dated 31.1.2003. The State Commission was of the view that it has got the powers to review its own order.
In C.A. Nos. 314-315, Jyotsana Avind Kumar Shah & Ors. v. Bombay Hospital Trust, decided on III (1999) CPJ 1 (SC)=VII (1999) SLT 146=22.1.1999, Supreme Court ruled that under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the State Commission has not been provided with powers to review its own orders passed on merits.
APPLYING the ratio of this decision, the order under revision deserves to be set aside as State Commission did not have the power to further award amount of Rs. 50,000/- to respondent by modifying the order dated 31.1.2003 passed on merit. Accordingly, while allowing revision, said order dated 31.10.2003 is set aside and M.P. No. 602 of 2003 dismissed. No order as to cost. R.P. allowed.