Judgment:
B.C. Kandpal, President (Oral):
1. This is an application filed by the applicant for reviewing the judgment and order dated 06.02.2014 passed by this Commission in First Appeal No. 213 of 2013; eBay India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Ajay Kumar.
2. The facts of the case are that the opposite party “ Sh. Ajay Kumar filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar against eBay India Pvt. Ltd., stating therein that he had purchased 4GB Sd card amounting to Rs. 132/- from eBay India Pvt. Ltd. According to the opposite party “ complainant, the card was not supplied to him and, therefore, he sent an e-mail to the company for refunding his amount. The company rejected the complainants request for refund of the amount. Hence the consumer complaint was filed.
3. The District Forum, Haridwar through judgment and order dated 26.06.2013, allowed the consumer complaint and awarded a sum of Rs. 23,135/- as compensation to the complainant. Aggrieved by the said order, eBay India Pvt. Ltd. preferred an appeal before this Commission bearing First Appeal No. 213 of 2013; eBay India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Ajay Kumar and the said appeal was decided by this Commission after hearing the learned counsel for the applicant and opposite party “ complainant in person, on merit vide judgment and order dated 06.02.2014. This Commission, by modifying the order of the District Forum, reduced the amount of compensation to Rs. 5,000/-.
4. Thereafter, the applicant “ eBay India Pvt. Ltd. has filed this application for review of the judgment and order dated 06.02.2014 passed by this Commission, on the ground that the said judgment has been obtained by the opposite party “ complainant by playing fraud.
Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the amount of Rs. 135/- was returned to the complainant, but he concealed this fact. Learned counsel for the applicant could not show us as to when this amount of Rs. 135/- was returned by the applicant to the opposite party and what is the evidence with regard to the refund of the amount to the complainant. In absence of any evidence having been adduced by the applicant, it can not be said by any stretch of imagination that the impugned judgment and order dated 06.02.2014 was procured by the opposite party “ complainant by playing fraud upon this Commission.
5. The Honble National Commission in the case of B. Srinivasa Rao Vs. Tafe Access Ltd. and another; IV (2011) CPJ 666 (NC), has specifically observed that even the order passed by the District Forum or the State Commission dismissing the complaint or appeal for want of prosecution, can not be recalled or restored or reviewed. The Honble National Commission in the aforesaid judgment, has also observed that restoration of appeal by the State Commission in that case, was misconceived. It has also been observed that the Honble National Commission has been provided the power to review the order under Section 22(2) and 22-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, but neither the District Forum, nor the State Commission has been vested with any such power. The Honble National Commission in its another decision rendered in the case of Nitin Mehta and others Vs. Prashant Kumar Vijay Kumar Jain; II (2012) CPJ 255 (NC), has observed that there is no provision under the Act for recall or review of any order passed by the District Forum or the State Commission.
6. In view of the aforesaid judgments, we are of the considered view that this application for review of the order passed by us on merit, is devoid of any force and is liable to be dismissed. The review application is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.