UTTAM BHARAT ELECTRICALS Vs. JAIPUR GOLDEN TRANSPORT CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for recalling reviewing the order dated 20.2.92 passed in Complaint Case No.11/91, by the State Commission and it has been filed by the complainant. By the order dated 20.2.92 the State Commission held that it lacks territorial jurisdiction for entertaining the complaint and so the complaint was ordered to be returned to the complainant for representation before a competent Redressal Forum Court Authority. A direction was given that the complaint alongwith the documents shall be returned to the complainant after making endorsement in regard to presentation of the complaint, date of order for return of the complaint and the actual date when the complaint and the documents are returned. The application was filed on 21.2.92. A perusal of the order dated 20.2.92 shows that learned Counsel for the opposite parties (non-applicants) in regard to the preliminary objection was heard as nobody appeared on behalf of the complainant. There is no provision in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the Act" herein) for recalling or reviewing the order which has been passed on merits.

(2.) Mrs. Madhuri Singh has been heard in support of the application. She submits that a redressal forum constituted under the Act has power to recall the order. The power is only when an exparte has been set aside or when an application for restoration is filed in a case which has been dismissed in default. There is abundant authority that the Redressal Forum constituted under the Act has such power. The application which has been filed on behalf of the complainant-petitioner by the learned Counsel is for recalling or reviewing the order of the return of the complaint which has been passed after considering the contention of the opposite-parties. It is in fact an order on merits so far as the return of the complaint is concerned. After the passing of the order for return of the complaint the State Commission has become functus officio and power of recalling or reviewing cannot be invoked for the purpose. Reference in this connection may be made to AIR 1970 SC 1273 (1275 ). It is also well settled that the power to review is not an inherent power. No review lies against the order dated 20.2.92.

(3.) The review application is consequently rejected.