Manwinder Singh S/o ... v. Harjinder Singh Pane...

Distt Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Ladowali Road, District Administrative Complex, 2nd Floor, Room No - 217

JALANDHAR

(PUNJAB)

Miscellaneous Application No. MA/3/2024 ( Date of Filing : 21 Feb 2024 ) In

Complaint Case No. CC/293/2022

1. Manwinder Singh S/o Balwinder Singh R/o Village Raowali Sarup Nagar, Near H.P.Factory, Pathankot Road, Jalandhar

jalandhar

PUNJAB ...........Appellant(s)

Versus

1. Harjinder Singh Panesar C/o H.P. Constructions , Interior Designers,

809, Bhagat Singh Nagar, Model House, Jalandhar jalandhar

PUNJAB ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Harveen Bhardwaj PRESIDENT Jaswant Singh Dhillon MEMBER PRESENT: Sh. Darshan Singh, Adv. Cl. for Applicant/Complainant. ......for the Appellant

Sh. Rakesh Sharma, Adv. Cl. for Respondent/OP. ......for the Respondent

Dated : 17 Jul 2024 Final Order / Judgement

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

Misc. App No.3 of 2024 Date of Instt. 21.02.2024 Date of Decision:17.07.2024 Manwinder Singh aged about 40 Years S/o Balwinder Singh R/o Village Raowali, Sarup Nagar, Near H. P. Factory, Pathankot Road, Jalandhar.

1

…….....Complainant Versus

Harjinder Singh Panesar C/o H. P. Construction, Construction/Interior Designer, 809, Bhagat Singh Nagar, Model House, Jalandhar.

………….. OP Application Under Section 40 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for Review of Order.

Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President) Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member) Present: Sh. Darshan Singh, Adv. Cl. for Applicant/Complainant. Sh. Rakesh Sharma, Adv. Cl. for Respondent/OP.

Order Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1. Today, the Member/Jyotsna is on leave.

2. Heard on the application filed on behalf of the complainant under Section 40 of Consumer Protection Act for review of the judgment dated 24.01.2024 passed in complaint no.293 of 2022, titled as Manwinder Singh Vs. Harjinder Singh Panesar, whereby the complaint of the complainant has been partly allowed.

3. It has been alleged by the applicant/complainant that there is a typographical/over sight in refunding Rs.1,17,000/-. It has further been alleged that the complainant has given the detail in Para No.3 in sub clause (a) to (d) and Para No.4 in his original complaint. It has specifically been mentioned by the complainant that the complainant had paid Rs.4,00,000/- to the OP and his expenses are Rs.2,83,000/-, in this way the complainant had already paid excess amount of Rs.1,17,000/- to the OP, but in order dated 21.01.2024, the Commission has not mentioned anything about the refund amount of Rs.1,17,000/- with interest, which has specifically been claimed by the complainant, in the prayer clause. This error is apparent on the face of it. The counsel for the complainant has further submitted that the Commission can review its order and the judgment can be corrected. He has relied upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court, C.R.P. Nos.1076 and 15412000, decided on 19.09.2001, titled as 'Pinipe Mallamma and others Vs. Kunche Chinna Mangamma and others'. Further, the counsel for the complainant has relied upon a law laid down by the Hon'ble Patna High Court,

2

in Civil Revn. No.307 of 1974, decided on 05.01.1978, titled as 'Ramsunder Singh Vs. Most Pana Kuer and others'. And submitted that the order dated 24.01.2024 be reviewed and the judgment be corrected and the amount of Rs.1,17,020/- be ordered to be refunded to the complainant/applicant with interest.

4. The application has been contested by the OPs. It has been alleged by the OP that the review application is not maintainable. There is no such error apparent which is required to be corrected in the order dated 24.01.2024, vide which the complaint of the complainant has already been allowed partly. The complainant has challenged the order on merits and has not sought the correction of apparent error. There is not typographical mistake as alleged by the complainant. He has further submitted that the claim of the complainant has been denied by the Commission with detailed order. Request has been made to dismiss the review application. Even the OP is aggrieved by the order and he intends to challenge the order dated 24.01.2024.

5. Original file of the complaint no.293 of 2022, titled as Manwinder Singh Vs. Harjinder Singh Panesar was summoned. Perusal of the order dated 24.01.2024 passed in complaint shows that the Commission has discussed in detail about the demand made by the complainant regarding the amount of Rs.1,17,000/-. It has been discussed in detail by the Commission in this Para that the complainant has failed to prove that the material of Rs.2,83,000/- was purchased by the OP for the purpose of construction and Rs.1,17,000/- was given in excess to the OP regarding which he wants to get the refund. This fact has been discussed in detail in Para No.8 and the claim of the complainant regarding the amount of Rs.1,17,000/- has been denied by the Commission. So, the relief of refund of Rs.1,17,000/- has already been denied by the complainant as the same has been decided on merits. So far as the law relied upon by the applicant relating to the correction of judgment is concerned, is not disputed. Section 40 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 under which the present review application has been filed, says:-

"The District Commission shall have the power to review any of the order passed by it if there is an error apparent on the face of the record, either of its own motion or on an application made by any of the parties within thirty days of such order."

6. So, as per the Section-40 of the Act, the Order can be reviewed only if there is an apparent error on the face of the record. The Hon'ble Kerala High Court has explained the meaning of the error apparent on the face of the record, in a case titled as "Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Younus Kunju". It has been held by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court that "it needs no repetition that a judgmental error is not a review able error, nor can it be termed an error on the face of record. Error in reasoning or, for that matter, in applying law to facts is an appeal able error. And that power of appeal is the creation of a statute. An error apparent on the face of record, on the other hand, an error that strikes one "on mere looking at the record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two"

In the present case, there is no error apparent on the face of it. The relief allegedly not given by the Commission to the complainant has specifically been denied by the Commission. By filing the present application for review the complainant in a way has challenged the order of the Commission. The point of refund of Rs.1,17,000/- has already been decided on merits and this cannot be reviewed. The order passed by the Commission is an

3

appealable order. Therefore, the review application has no merits and the same is dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to the complainant. File be consigned to the Record Room. Dated Jaswant Singh Dhillon Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj

17.07.2024 Member President

[ Harveen Bhardwaj]

PRESIDENT

[ Jaswant Singh Dhillon]

MEMBER

4