NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMTED v. MR. MOJIBUR REHMAN

Revisionist prays for the setting aside of the impugned order dated

08.12.2023.

3. The Respondent, on the other hand, denied all the allegations of the Revisionist and submitted that there is no error in the impugned order dated 21.04.2023.

4. The Appellant has filed its written arguments and reiterated the contentions made in the appeal. It further relies on the following judgments:

a. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs M/S. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 24 September 2004.

b. Oriental Insurance Company vs Sony Cheriyan (1996) 6

SCC 451.

c. General Assurance Society Ltd. vs Chandumull Jain and Anr. (1966) 3 SCR 500.

5. The Respondent has also filed its written arguments and has taken these into consideration.

6. We have perused the material available on record and heard the counsel for the parties.

7. The main question for consideration before us is whether the impugned order dated 08.12.2023, passed by the District Commission, is suffering from any infirmity?

8. To deal with the issue whether present revision petition maintainable before, we deem it appropriate to refer to Section 17 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 reproduced hereunder as:

"(b) to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has

3

been decided by any District Forum within the State, where it appears to the State Commission that such District Forum has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity."

9. A perusal of the aforesaid statutory position makes it clear that the State Commission can entertain a revision petition in cases where the District Commission has acted extra-judicially or the District Commission has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

10. Reverting to the material on record, it is imperative to refer order dated 08.12.2023 passed by the District Commission, which is reproduced below respectively:

"A review application has been filed by JD on 10.05.2023. A review of order dated 23.12.2023 review being beyond time is dismissed. List the matter for compliance on 27.02.2024."

11. From the aforementioned order dated 08.12.2023, it is clear that the District Commission dismissed the review application for the order dated 23.12.2023 in Complaint bearing No. 121 of 2013.

12. Here, it is pertinent to mention that in Neena Aneja vs. Jai Prakash Associates Ltd. (2022) 2 SCC 161, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that complaints filed prior to July 2020 under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, must be decided strictly under its provisions. A bare perusal of the record shows that the original Complaint pertains to the year 2013. Therefore, it is clear that the entire proceedings of

4

EA/12/2023 in CC/121/2013 shall be governed under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

13. Furthermore, it is to be noted that under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & Ors. vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar & Anr. [(2011) 9 SCC 541], the District and State Consumer Commissions have no power to review their own orders. The only authority competent to review under 1986 Act is the Hon'ble National Commission under section 22(2) of the 1986 Act.

14. Returning to the facts of the present matter, it is noted that the District Commission had dismissed the review application filed by the Revisionist on the ground of time barred. However, it is pertinent to note that the said review application itself was not maintainable as it was filed under the provisions of the old Consumer Protection Act, 1986, wherein there was no specific provision empowering the District Commission to entertain a review application against its own order. As a result, we are of view that the District Commission erred in entertaining the review application as the same was not maintainable before District Commission under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

15. Additionally, the Revisionist did not avail the appropriate legal remedy and instead filed a review application, which was not maintainable in law. Therefore, in absence of availing the proper remedy, no relief can be granted to the Revisionist in the present revision petition.

16. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed.

5

17. No order as to costs.

18. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

19. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

20. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.

(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL)

PRESIDENT

(PINKI)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Pronounced On:

04.07.2025.

6