Full Judgment
A.P. Chowdhri, President:
1. This is an application in Revision Petition No. 45/96 which was disposed of by order dated 27.8.96 by this Commission seeking certain modifications. In order to understand the prayer made in the present application, he may briefly mention the background facts. A large number of persons booked Montana Cars which were being manufactured and had been offered for sale by M/s. Sipani Automobiles through various dealers appointed by them. The booking amount was Rs. 10,000/-per car. The various persons cancelled the order for booking and demanded refund of the booking amount alongwith interest. Having failed to receive the amount, they instituted separate complaints before the District Forum. District Forum allowed the complaints and directed refund of the booking amount together with the interest at the stipulated rate of 7% upto date of cancellation and 18% from the date of cancellation upto date of payment besides Rs. 2,000/-as costs. The order of the District Forum was challenged in the aforesaid Revision Petition M/s. Sipani Automobiles v. Smt. Bimala Devi and Others, 18 complainants who had individually filed their complaints were arrayed as respondents No. 1 to 18. At the time of admission Mr. K.P. Sunder Rao Advocate of the revision petitioner undertook to pay the principal amount i.e. booking amount on the next date of hearing and further undertook that the revision petitioner would pay such amount of interest as the Commission fixes. In view of the above under taking further recovery proceedings were stayed. The revision petition next came up for hearing on 11.3.96 when cheques of Rs. 10,000/-each were handed over to the respondent as noted in the order. The revision was then taken up for hearing on 10.5.96 when it was reported that most of the cheques had bounced. The revision petitioner, however, offered some explanation why the cheques had been dishonoured and also gave 12 Pay Orders of Rs. 10,000/-each in lieu of the cheques given earlier. The parties were called upon to submit a statement of the amount due on account of interest in terms of the order of District Forum and Rs. 500/-as costs before the Commission. The case next came up for hearing on 30.5.96 when Quoram was not complete and the revision petitioner wanted to verify the various dues made in the calculation submitted by the respondents. The revision petitioner also filed a statement of the amount due to various respondents on account of interest and costs. Ultimately the case was taken up on 27.8.96 when on the basis of the agreement of the parties, it was settled that each of the respondent would be paid Rs. 19,000/-on account of interest and costs worked out upto 26.7.96 in full and final settlement of the claim allowed by the District Forum within one month of the order. In case of default, it was further ordered that the amount as directed by District Forum would be payable. The revision petition was disposed of leaving it open to any of the respondents whose amount had not been fully recovered to recover the same through proper proceedings before the District Forum. The amount of interest was allowed @ 7% upto the date of cancellation and 18% thereafter till payment.
2. In the present application, the revision petitioner has stated that actually the amount worked out in terms of the order of District Forum as affirmed by this Commission on account of interest and costs worked out to much less then Rs. 19,000/-and, therefore, the consent of the revision petitioner in the order dated 27.8.96 was based on the misunderstanding of the implication and, therefore, the same be corrected so that only the amount which is found to be due is given and not more. The application has been stoutly contested.
3. We have heard Mr. R.R. Handa, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. A.N. Gupta, authorised representative of 12 respondents and some other respondents who appeared in person.
4. The contention of Mr. R.R. Handa is that consent of the petitioner in the main order was based on the impression that amount of interest and costs would add up to nearly Rs. 19,000/-. On checking the calculations again it was found that the amount worked out to much less and it would be unjust if the applicant is made to pay more than the amount ordered by the FORA simply because of the aforesaid mistake. He, therefore, vehemently contended that it would be in the interest of justice to rectify the error.
5. The contention of Mr. A.N. Gupta on the other hand, is that there is no power of review vested in this Commission and the order in question cannot be challenged as it was a consent order. Mr. A.N. Gupta was further contended that the amount worked in terms of the order of the FORA was nearly Rs. 19,000/-. In some cases it was even more. The amounts worked out in each case had been shown in the table annexed with the reply filed by 12 respondents represented by him. He also submitted that the agreement was not reached at the spur of the moment but the same remained under the consideration of the Company for quite some time as intimated in the letter of the Dy. General Manager (Commercial) dated 26.7.96 i.e., the amount payable would work out to be about Rs. 19/000/-. Mr. Gupta invited our attention to earlier decisions of this Commission in Usha Gupta v. The General Manager, II (1991) CPJ 87 and Raj Kumar Sareen v. Skipper Builders (P) Limited, I (1996) CPJ 173 for the proposition that the FORA constituted under the Consumer Protection Act did not have power to review.
6. In Grindlays Bank v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal, AIR 1981 SC 606, the Supreme Court laid down that 'Review' was used in two distinct senses; (1) procedural which is either inherent or implied in a Court or Tribunal to set aside a palpably erroneous order passed under a misapprehension by it and (2) to review on merits when error is one of law and is apparent on the face of the record. It was further laid down that Government must be corrected ex debito justitiae to prevent abuse of its process and such power inferes in every Court or Tribunal. The present case does not fall in this category. What is sought is a review properly so called. It is a well settled law that unless the statute under which the quasi Judicial Authority is constituted is invested with power of review, the said power is not available. We, therefore, hold that the order in question cannot be reviewed or modified.
7. There is no dispute that the said order was passed with the consent of the parties; that being so, the same cannot be reopened. For these reasons, the application fails and the same is dismissed. A copy of the order be communicated to both parties.
Application dismissed.