VISHAKHA MUNJAL Vs. AYESHA FARHAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present revision petition has been filed against order dated 10.3.2011 passed by Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'State Commission').

(2.) Respondent No. 1/complainant has filed a complaint before State Commission. On 27.7.2010, the matter was fixed for admission hearing before State Commission. Neither complainant nor her Counsel appeared before the State Commission and as such complaint of respondent No. 1 was dismissed an default. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 filed an application under Order 9 Rule 4 read with Section 151 of CPC for restoration of the complaint. The complaint was restored vide the impugned order.

(3.) Main grievance of the petitioner is that State Commission has no power to review its own order, as such the impugned order is erroneous and illegal. In support of its contentions, learned Counsel for petitioner relied upon Jyotsana Arvind kumar Shah and Ors. v. Bombay Hospital Trust, 1999 3 CPJ 1 and decision of this Commission in P.C. Jain v. Dr. R.P.Singh, RP/2188/2010 decided on7.12.2010.