SURINDER VIRGOTRA vs KANTA RANI

THE above mentioned revision petition is directed against the order of District Forum-II, dated 13.10.2003 in Complaint Case No. 288/2003- entitled Smt. Kanta Rani v. Shri Surinder Virgotra.

THE brief facts, leading to the filing of the present revision petition are that the respondent/complainant Smt. Kanta Rani had filed a complaint before the District Forum for the redressal of her grievances under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''). THE said complaint was decided ex parte by the learned District Forum vide order dated 8.11.2002. THEreafter the petitioner filed an application before the District Forum for setting aside the ex parte order dated 8.11.2002 along with an application for condonation of delay in filing the same. THE learned District Forum dismissed both the above said applications vide impugned order on the ground that the ex parte order dated 8.11.2003 was passed on merits and the Forum had no jurisdiction to review its own order under the Act. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has preferred the present petition before this Commission.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission of the present petition and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. The learned District Forum has vide impugned order dismissed the application of the petitioner for setting aside ex parte reasoned final order dated 8.11.2002. We find no infirmity in the impugned order in view of the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in case entitled Jyotsana Arvind Kumar Shah & Ors. v. Bombay Hospital Trust, reported as III (1999) CPJ 1 (SC)=VII (1999) SLT 146=1986-99 Consumer 4943 (NS), wherein it has been held that Foras under the Act have no power to review its own final reasoned order even though ex parte. In view of the above decision, since the learned District Forum had passed a final reasoned order, the only remedy available to the respondent was to come up in appeal against the said order and the learned District Forum has rightly held that no powers of review lie with the Foras to recall its own final order. Accordingly, the present petition, filed by the petitioner, suffers from no jurisdictional error and as such is liable to be dismissed in limine with no order as to cost. Revision Petition dismissed.