EICHER MOT Vs. SUKHDEV SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case was decided by us on 25.3.1997 when the learned Counsel of the appellant was not present. The matter was decided on merits after seeing the record. However, by the present application, the applicant/appellant has sought review of the order mainly on the ground that on 13.12.1996 when the Counsel for the appellant was present in the Commission, he noted the date as 26.3.1997 as another case of the Counsel for the appellant had been adjourned for the same date. However, the case was taken up on 25.3.1997 and orders were passed. The non-presence of the Counsel for the applicant/appellant on 25.3.1997 was not intentional and justified. An affidavit has been filed by Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, learned Counsel in support of his application and no affidavit in rebuttal has been filed by the other side. In such circumstances, we have to accept the version as given by Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Counsel for the applicant/appellant, more particularly, according to us, the affidavit filed by the member of the Bar has got to be given due weight by the Court. There is no reason to disbelieve such version, we have grave doubts whether the review is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, as the remedy of review is only provided by a statute. However, we have no doubt in our mind that in the event of miscarriage of justice, this Commission has inherent powers to recall its own orders. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation to hold that there has been miscarriage of justice and the matter requires to be re-heard on merits and by exercising the inherent powers, we recall the order and accordingly the order dated 25.3.1997 is set aside. The case will be heard on merits.

(2.) List this case for arguments on l6.12.1997. Order set aside.