SCOOTER INDIA LTD Vs. PRADEEP KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application made on 3.10.1999 the petitioner in effect has invited us to recall the order dated 22.4.1996 passed by this Commission in which it was recorded that "the Authorised Representative was not present when the matter was called for hearing.... we have gone through the records of the case inclusive of the order passed by the State Commission with the assistance of Mr. Swarup. We do not find any error of law or even of facts in the reasoning and conclusions recorded by the State Commission. Hence, there is no scope at all for interfering with the impugned order. The Appeal is thus devoid of merits and it is hereby dismissed. No costs. It will clearly appear from this order that the appeal was not dismissed merely on the ground that the appellant was not present. The Commission also went into the merits of the appeal and decided not to disturb the view taken by the State Commission. This Review Application is, therefore, misconceived.

(2.) On behalf of the Appellant it has been contended that the Court has inherent power to recall its order in the interest of justice. Our attention has been drawn to a case reported in (1996) 5 Supreme Court Cases 550 pages 550 to 558 - Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd. But the difficulty in accepting this contention of the petition is two-fold. First, there is a later judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 314-315 - Jyotsana Arvindkumar Shah & Ors. v. Bombay Hospital Trust, III (1999) CPJ 1 (SC)=VII (1999) SLT (SC)=146 dated 22.1.1999 in which the Supreme Court has taken the view that the State Commission cannot recall an order passed by it ex parte because the Consumer Protection Act has not specifically conferred this power on the Commission.

(3.) The applicant's contention is that the appellant's Lawyer has let him down and he had no inkling of the order passed by the Commission.