New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs SURYA CREDIT LIMITED

M/s. Surya Credit Limited, the complainant filed a complaint before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal against the New India Assurance Company Limited claiming an amount of Rs. 3.50 lakhs arising out of theft and loss of the vehicle insured with the Insurance Company. After holding due enquiry, the Insurance Company was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 2,82,821/- with interest @ 18% per annum effective from April, 1992 until payment besides cost of Rs. 2,000/-.

FEELING aggrieved by the order of the West Bengal State Commission, the New India Assurance Company filed appeal before this Commission. The appeal came up for hearing before this Commission on 5.5.1995 and was disposed of with the following order : "The impugned order passed by the State Commission is seen to have been signed only by two Members of the State Commission without the junction of the President. This is manifestly violative of the mandatory requirement incorporated in 12(2A) read alongwith Section 18 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The impugned order is, therefore, null and void and passed without jurisdiction. Hence, we allow this appeal, set aside the order passed by the State Commission for de novo disposal in accordance with law after affording both sides fair and adequate opportunity of being heard. Since this is an old case, the State Commission is requested to dispose of it within a period not exceeding four months from the date of receipt of this order".

The matter came up before the State Commission on 11th February, 1997. After hearing Counsel for the parties, the State Commission passed the following order : "This case was once before heard by the two Members of the Commission who passed an order signed by them on 18.4.1994. An appeal was filed against the said order before the State Commission who by its order dated 5.5.1995 in First Appeal No. 397 of 1994 set aside the order of the State Commission on the ground that the order was passed without the junction of the President. Pursuant to the order of the State Commission the matter was taken up for re-hearing. At this stage both parties suggested, relying on a subsequent order of the Supreme Court dated 25.9.1996 passed in Civil Appeal No. 33/96 (since reported in (1996) 4 CTJ S. 51 Supreme Court (CP) that the matter might be reviewed by the State Commission, after the passing of the Supreme Court order. Both parties accordingly suggested that the matter should be referred to the National Commission for clarification and a review of the order. Accordingly the case is resubmitted to the Hon''ble National Commission for passing any further order in the matter in the light of the above submission. It may be mentioned in this connection that on 18.4.1994 when the order was signed by only two Members of the Commission there was no person holding the post of President, the former President Mrs. Justice Jyotirmoyee Nag having relinquished her office and the present President Justice A.K. Bhattacharji having joined later on 17.5.1994."

The matter was listed for hearing before this Commission on 19.5.1998. Mr.A.S. Nambiar, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that the order dated 5th of May, 1995 passed by this Commission may be reviewed in the light of the later judgment of the Supreme Court dated 25.9.1996 delivered in the case of Gulzurilal Agarwal v. Accounts Officer, reported as (1996) 10 Supreme Court Cases 590, wherein construing the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the West Bengal Consumer Protection Rules, 1987, it was held as under: "The only harmonious construction that could be given to Sub-sections (2) and (2- A) of Section 14 read with Sub-rules (9) and (10) is that as and when the President of the I State Commission is functional, he alongwith at least one Member sitting together shall conduct the proceeding but where the President being non-functional, Sub-rules (9) and (10) of Rule 6 will govern the proceedings. Sub-rule (9) provides that where any such vacancy occurs in the office of the President of the State Commission, the Senior-most (in order of appointment) Member holding office for the time being, shall discharge the function of the President until a person is appointed to fill such vacancy. This sub-rule is made with a view to make the State Commission functional in the absence of the President and not to allow the State Commission to be rendered non-functional for want of the President".

ACCORDING to him, this Commission can, by exercising its inherent power, review its order for doing complete justice. We have given our careful thought to the contention raised by Mr. Nambiar. We are of the considered opinion that the contention is not well founded and is untenable in law.

WE are of the view that Courts do not possess inherent power to review their orders. The power to review has to be created by a statute and when so conferred, it has to be exercised in accordance with the statutory provisions. The view that we have taken is in confirmity with the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Patel Narshi Thakershi & Ors. v. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji, reported as AIR 1970 Supreme Court 1273, wherein it was ruled: "The power to review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication". We have examined the provision of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. No power either specifically or by necessary implication has been conferred upon the FORA constituted under the provisions of the Act to review their order.

MOREOVER, it is also settled law that subsequent decision in an other case is not a ground for review.

IN view of this, we find no merit in the contention raised by the respondent. Hence, the request made for review of the order of this Commission dated 5th May, 1995 is declined. The State Commission will proceed to decide the case in terms of the order dated 5.5.1995. Ordered accordingly.