2011 (8) TMI 1273 - SC - Indian Laws

Consumer Forums lack power to review ex parte orders; National Commission has authority. Court decisions highlighted.

Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & others Versus Achyut Kashinath Karekar & another, M.O.H. Leathers Versus United Commercial Bank

The Court held that District Consumer Forums and State Commissions do not have the power to set aside or review their own ex parte orders. The National ... District Consumer Forums and the State Commissions power to set aside their own ex parte orders or in other words have the power to recall or review their own orders Issues Involved:1. Whether the District Consumer Forums and the State Commissions have the power to set aside their own ex parte orders or recall/review their own orders.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Power to Set Aside or Review Ex Parte Orders by District Consumer Forums and State CommissionsBackground and Facts:- The appeals stem from orders passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.- The main question is whether the District Consumer Forums and the State Commissions have the power to set aside or review their own ex parte orders.- The cases involve complaints regarding deficiency in service, specifically a medical negligence case resulting in death.Arguments and Legal Provisions:- Appellants' Arguments:- The appellants argued that the State Commission does not have the power to restore complaints dismissed for default without issuing notice to the appellants.- They relied on Jyotsana Arvind Kumar Shah & Others v. Bombay Hospital Trust (1999) 4 SCC 325, where it was held that the State Commission does not have the power to review or recall its ex parte order.- They also cited Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das (1994) 4 SCC 225 and Gulzari Lal Agarwal v. Accounts Officer (1996) 10 SCC 590 to argue that consumer tribunals derive their powers only from express statutory provisions.- The appellants pointed out that Section 22A, introduced by the 2002 Amendment, specifically grants the National Commission the power to set aside ex parte orders, but this power was not extended to the District Forums or State Commissions.- Respondents' Arguments:- The respondents argued that the Commission was justified in setting aside the ex parte order to ensure justice and that trivial technicalities should not deprive them of their rights.- They relied on New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. R. Srinivasan (2000) 3 SCC 242, where it was held that Consumer Courts have inherent powers to restore complaints dismissed for default.Court's Analysis and Judgment:- The Court noted that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, does not expressly grant the District Forums and State Commissions the power to set aside or review ex parte orders.- The Court observed that the National Commission has been given specific powers to review and set aside ex parte orders through the 2002 Amendment (Sections 22 and 22A).- The Court concluded that the decision in Jyotsana's case correctly interpreted the law, stating that the State Commission does not have the power to recall its ex parte orders.- The Court found the view taken in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. to be untenable as it did not consider the earlier decision in Jyotsana's case.Final Directions:- In Civil Appeal No. 4307 of 2007, the Court set aside the National Commission's finding that the State Commission can review its own orders. However, it agreed with the National Commission's decision to restore Complaint No. 473 of 1999 for hearing.- The State Commission was directed to dispose of the complaint within three months.- In Civil Appeal No. 8155 of 2001, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the National Commission to dispose of Original Petition No. 110 of 2003 de novo within three months.- Both appeals were disposed of, with parties bearing their own costs.This comprehensive analysis preserves the legal terminology and significant phrases from the original judgment, providing an in-depth summary of the issues and the Court's reasoning.