ORDER
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (President)
1. This a miscellaneous petition seeking review of our order dated 9.12.1993
by which order this Commission dismissed the complaint as barred by limitation.
Complainant, it would appear challenged that order in the Supreme Court. By order dated
6.5.1999 Supreme Court gave opportunity to the complainant-appellant to approach this
Commission again for review of its order. The appeal (Civil Appeal No. 255 of 1994)
before the Supreme Court was therefore, dismissed as withdrawn
2. It will be appropriate to reproduce the order of the Supreme Court:
“Learned counsel for the appellant submitted before us that even assuming
that the finding of the National Commission that the complaint was time
barred was correct, an opportunity for producing sufficient material for
condonation of delay has been lost to him and according to him, he himself
had argued the matter before the National Commission and had prayed for
an opportunity to pray for condonation of delay. Unfortunately, this
aspect of the matter was not considered by the National Commission
though, he had pointed out this aspect based on relevant documents to
which he drew our attention. In our view, if this is the grievance, the
remedy of the appellant would be to approach the Commission in review
proceedings pointing out all relevant facts including prayer for an
opportunity to apply for condonation of delay on that basis. We make no
observation on the merits of this submission. However, recording this
submission of learned counsel for the appellant, we grant him liberty to
withdraw this appeal with a view to approaching the National Commission
in review proceedings. It is obvious that the challenge to Commission’s
order was being actively and bonafide pursued in these proceedings. This
Court after issuing notice on 14.2.1994 ultimately admitted the appeal on
28.4.1995 which had remained pending althroughout before this Court
and is being withdrawn today by learned counsel for the appellant to
pursue the remedy of review proceedings. Therefore, he appellant while
approaching the National Commission in review proceedings may file
application for condonation of delay in moving review proceedings
submitting all these relevant facts. The appeal is accordingly dismissed as
withdrawn.”
3. In pursuance to the submission made in the Supreme Court, complainant
has filed this miscellaneous petition seeking review of our order dated 9.12.1993.
4. A preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel
for the opposite party that this review petition is not maintainable as a Forum under the
Consumer Protection Act has no power to review its own order. he has referred to the
decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jyotsana Arvindkumar Shah and Ors.
v. Bombay Hospital Trust-(1990) 4 SCC 325.
5. Mr. Singh learned counsel for the complainant submitted that there is a
direction from the Supreme Court in the present case for consideration of the application
seeking review. He said any Tribunal has inherent power to review its own order. We
are afraid we are unable to agree with the submission of Mr. Singh. This question has
already been considered by us in the case of Gammon India Ltd. v. Gulmohar
Estates Ltd. (Original Petition No. 57 of 1994) where we have held, relying on the
decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jyotsana Arvindkumar Shah and Ors. v.
Bombay Hospital Trust that this Commission has no jurisdiction to review its own order
Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Jyotsana Arvindkumar Shah and Ors. v.
Bombay Hospital Trust which is a law laid down by the Supreme Court, is dated January
22.1.1999 and which does not seem to have been brought to the notice of the Bench in the
case of the complainant while passing order dated 5.6.1999. This miscellaneous petition
for review is, therefore, dismissed.