LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

whether the District Consumer Forums and the State Commissions have the power to set aside their own ex parte orders or in other words have the power to recall or review their own orders? = On careful analysis of the provisions of the Act, it is abundantly clear that the Tribunals are creatures of the Statute and derive their power from the express provisions of the Statute. The District Forums and the State Commissions have not been given any power to set aside ex parte orders and power of review and the powers which have not been expressly given by the Statute cannot be exercised. 37. The legislature chose to give the National Commission power to review its ex parte orders. Before amendment, against dismissal of any case by the Commission, the consumer had to rush to this Court. The amendment in Section 22 and introduction of Section 22-A were done for the convenience of the consumers. In our considered opinion, the decision in Jyotsana’s case laid down the correct law and the view taken in the later decision of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. is untenable and cannot be sustained.


                                                            REPORTABLE


                 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA



                  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION



                   CIVIL APPEAL NO.4307 OF 2007




Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & Others                          ... Appellants



            Versus



Achyut Kashinath Karekar & Another                       ... Respondents




                                   WITH


                   CIVIL APPEAL NO.8155 OF 2001



M.O.H. Leathers                                          ... Appellants



            Versus



United Commercial Bank                             ... Respondents





                           J U D G M E N T




Dalveer Bhandari, J.


1.    These appeals emanate from the order dated 16.11.2005



in Revision Petition No.551 of 2005 and order dated 12.7.2001



in   Miscellaneous   Petition   No.1   of   2001   in   Original   Petition



No.110   of   1993   passed   by   the   National   Consumer   Disputes



Redressal Commission, New Delhi.


                                                                              2



2.    The   main   question   which   arises   for   consideration   is



whether   the   District   Consumer   Forums   and   the   State



Commissions   have   the   power   to   set   aside   their   own  ex   parte



orders   or   in   other   words   have   the   power   to   recall   or   review



their own orders?



3.    The   questions   of   law   involved   in   both   the   appeals   are



identical, therefore, we deem it appropriate to dispose of both



these appeals by a common judgment.




4.    Brief   facts   necessary   to   dispose   of   these   appeals   are



recapitulated as under:




CIVIL APPEAL NO.4307 OF 2007



5.    Smita Achyut Karekar was admitted to Ashirwad Nursing



Home as she was suffering from the ailment of slip disc.   The



operation   was   performed   on   8.10.1997.     It   was   noticed,   at



about   3.45   pm   on   that   day,   that   her   blood   vessels   had



ruptured   accidentally   during   the   surgery.     She   was   declared



dead at 5.35 pm.




6.    The   complainants   issued   a   legal   notice   on   24.7.1999.



Reply   to   the   legal   notice   was   sent   on   7.8.1999.     The



complainants filed complaint alleging deficiency in service and


                                                                         3



claimed   compensation   of   Rs.15,00,000/-.   The   complainants



did   not   take   necessary   steps   to   remove   objection   and   to



complete procedure under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.



The   State   Commission,   Maharashtra   issued   notice   to   the



opposite   parties/appellants   herein   on   10.02.2004.   On



9.9.2004,   the   State   Commission   dismissed   the   complaint   for



want   of   prosecution.     On   04.11.2004,   the   complainants   filed



an   application   for   recalling   9.9.2004   order   and   consequently



the   State   Commission   recalled   the   order   dated   9.9.2004   and



restored the complaint.




7.    The   appellants   aggrieved   by   the   said   order   preferred   a



Revision   Petition   No.551   of   2005   before   the   National



Consumer   Disputes   Redressal   Commission,   New   Delhi.     The



appellants  in   the   revision  petition   made  two   main  arguments



before the Commission : firstly, that the State Commission did



not   have   the   power   to   restore   the   complaint   and,   secondly,



that   the   State   Commission   restored   the   complaint     without



issuing   notice   to   the   appellants.   The   National   Commission



dismissed the revision petition  which has been challenged by



the appellants before this Court.


                                                                          4



8.    The   appellants   relied   on   the   judgment   in   the   case   of


Jyotsana   Arvind   Kumar   Shah   &   Others  v.  Bombay


Hospital   Trust  (1999)   4   SCC   325.     In   this   case,   the   Court


held   that   the   State   Commission   did   not   have   the   power   to



review or recall its ex parte order.




9.    In  New   India   Assurance   Co.   Ltd.  v.  R.   Srinivasan



(2000) 3 SCC 242, this Court took the contrary view and held



that  the  State  Commission   could  review or  recall its  ex parte



order.




10. In the instant case, a two-Judge Bench of this Court vide



judgment   and   order   dated   17.9.2007   reported   in   2007   (11)



SCALE 166  noted the controversy and observed as under:



      "5. In Jyotsana's case it was observed at para 7 as

      follows:



            "We   heard   the   learned   counsel   on   both

            sides for quite some time. When we asked

            the   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the

            respondent   to   point   out   the   provision   in

            the   Act   which   enables   the   State

            Commission   to   set   aside   the   reasoned

            order   passed,   though   ex   parte,   he   could

            not lay his hands on any of the provisions

            in the Act. As a matter of fact, before the

            State Commission the appellants brought

            to   its   notice   the   two   orders,   one   passed

            by the Bihar State Commission in  Court

            Master,   UCO   Bank  v.  Ram   Govind


                                                                   5



Agarwal 1996 (1) CPR 351 and the other

passed   by   the   National   Commission   in

Director,   Forest   Research   Institute  v.

Sunshine   Enterprises  1997   (1)   CPR   42

holding   that   the   redressal   agencies   have

no power to recall or review their ex parte

order.   The   State   Commission   had

distinguished the abovesaid orders on the

ground   that   in   those   two   cases   the

opponents had not only not appeared but

also   failed   to   put   in   their   written

statements.   In   other   words,   in   the   case

on   hand,   according   to   the   State

Commission,   the   opponent   (respondent)

having   filed   the   written   statements,   the

failure to consider the same by the State

Commission   before   passing   the   order

would be a valid ground for setting aside

the   ex   parte   order.   The                     State

Commission, however, fell into an error in

not   bearing   in   mind   that   the   Act   under

which it is functioning has not provided it

with   any   jurisdiction   to   set   aside   the   ex

parte reasoned order. It is also seen from

the order of the State Commission that it

was influenced by the concluding portion

of   the   judgment   of   the   Bombay   High

Court   to   the   effect   that   the   respondent

(writ   petitioner)   could   approach   the

appellate         authority         or         make         an

appropriate   application   before   the   State

Commission for setting aside the ex parte

order,  if   permissible   under   the   law.   Here

again,   the   State   Commission   failed   to

appreciate   that   the   observation   of   the

High Court would help the respondent, if

permissible under the law. If the law does

not   permit   the   respondent   to   move   the

application   for   setting   aside   the   ex   parte

order,   which   appears   to   be   the   position,

the order of the State Commission setting

aside   the   ex   parte   order   cannot   be


                                                                      6



      sustained.   As   stated   earlier,   there   is   no

      dispute   that   there   is   no   provision   in   the

      Act enabling the State Commission to set

      aside an ex parte order."



6.  Subsequently,   in  New   India   Assurance   case

this Court appears to have taken a different view as

it is evident from what has been stated in para 18,

the same reads as follows:



        "We   only   intend   to   invoke   the   spirit   of

      the principle behind the above dictum in

      support   of   our   view   that   every   court   or

      judicial   body   or   authority,   which   has   a

      duty   to   decide   a  lis   between   two   parties,

      inherently possesses the power to dismiss

      a   case   in   default.   Where   a   case   is   called

      up   for   hearing   and   the   party   is   not

      present,   the   court   or   the   judicial   or

      quasi-judicial body is under no obligation

      to keep the matter pending before it or to

      pursue   the   matter   on   behalf   of   the

      complainant   who   had   instituted   the

      proceedings.   That   is   not   the   function   of

      the court or, for that matter of a judicial

      or   quasi-judicial   body.   In   the   absence   of

      the complainant, therefore, the court will

      be   well   within   its   jurisdiction   to   dismiss

      the   complaint   for   non-prosecution.   So

      also,   it   would   have   the   inherent   power

      and   jurisdiction   to   restore   the   complaint

      on   good   cause   being   shown   for   the   non-

      appearance of the complainant."



7. In the latter case i.e. New India Assurance case

reference   was   not   made   to   the   earlier   decision   in

Jyotsana   case.   Further   the   effect   of   the

amendment to the Act in 2003 whereby Section 22A

was   introduced   has   the   effect   of   conferment   of

power   of   restoration   on   the   National   Commission,

but   not   to   the   State   Commission.   In   view   of   the

divergence   of   views   expressed   by   coordinate


                                                                               7



       Benches,   we   refer   the   matter   to   a   larger   Bench   to

       consider   the   question   whether   the   State

       Commission   has   the   power   to   recall   the   ex   parte

       order.   Records   be   placed   before   the   Hon'ble   Chief

       Justice of India for appropriate orders."



11.    We   have   been   called   upon   to   decide   whether   the   State



Commission has the power to recall an ex parte order.




12.    Shri   Siddharth   Bhatnagar,   learned   senior   counsel



appearing   for   the   appellants   in   Civil   Appeal   No.4307   of   2007



submitted   that   the   Consumer   Tribunals   set   up   under   the



Consumer   Protection   Act,   1986   are   creatures   of   that   Statute



and derive their powers only from the express provisions of the



Statute.   He has drawn our attention to various provisions of



the   Consumer   Protection   Act,   1986   to   strengthen   his



submission.     He   referred   to   Section   13(4)   of   the   Consumer



Protection Act, 1986 which reads as under:



       "13 (4) For the purposes of this Section, the District

       Forum shall have the same powers as are vested in

       a   Civil   Court   under   the   Code   of   Civil   Procedure,

       1908 (5 of 1908), while trying a suit in respect of the

       following matters, namely:-



       (i)     the   summoning   and   enforcing   the   attendance

               of any defendant or witness and examining the

               witness on oath;



       (ii)    the discovery and production of any document

               or other material object produced as evidence;


                                                                               8



       (iii)    the reception of evidence on affidavits;



       (iv)     the   requisitioning   of   the   report   of   the

                concerned   analysis   or   test   from   the

                appropriate   laboratory   or   from   any   other

                relevant source;



       (v)      issuing of any commission for the examination

                of any  witness; and



       (vi)     any other matter which may be prescribed."




13.    Mr.   Bhatnagar   has   also   drawn   our   attention   to



Regulation   26(1)   of   the   Consumer   Protection   Regulations,



2005, framed in exercise of powers conferred by Section 30-A



of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Regulation 26(1) reads



as follows:



       "26. Miscellaneous--   (1)   In   all   proceedings   before

       the Consumer  Forum,  endeavour  shall be made  by

       the   parties   and   their   counsel   to   avoid   the   use   of

       provisions   of   Code   of   Civil   Procedure,   1908   (5   of

       1908):



       Provided   that   the   provisions   of   the   Code   of   Civil

       Procedure,   1908   may   be   applied   which   have   been

       referred   to   in   the   Act   or   in   the   rules   made

       thereunder."




14.    Mr. Bhatnagar submitted that only very few provisions of



the Code of Civil Procedure have been made applicable to the



proceedings   before   the   District   Forums   and   the   State



Commissions   under   Section   18   of   the   Consumer   Protection


                                                                                 9



Act,   which   applies   Sections   13   and   14   to   the   State



Commission   and   the   National   Commission   (under   Section



22(1)   are   those   under   Section   13(4)).       He   relied   on   the



judgment   of   this   Court   in  Morgan   Stanley   Mutual   Fund  v.


Kartick   Das  (1994)   4   SCC   225   to   strengthen   his   argument


that the consumer  tribunals  can derive  powers only from the



express provisions in the Statute.   In the said case, the Court



observed as under:



       "44.  A   careful   reading   of   the   above   discloses   that

       there is no power under the Act to grant any interim

       relief of (sic or) even an ad interim relief. Only a final

       relief   could   be   granted.   If   the   jurisdiction   of   the

       Forum to grant relief is confined to the four clauses

       mentioned   under   Section   14,   it   passes   our

       comprehension   as   to   how   an   interim   injunction

       could ever be granted disregarding even the balance

       of convenience."




15.    Mr. Bhatnagar also placed reliance on another judgment



of   this   Court   in  Gulzari   Lal   Agarwal  v.  Accounts   Officer



(1996)   10   SCC   590.     In   this   case,   the   Court   relied   on   earlier



judgment of this Court in the case of Morgan Stanley Mutual


Fund  and   observed   that   the   Consumer   Forum   has   no


jurisdiction   or   power   to   pass   any   interim   order   pending



disposal of the original complaint filed before it.


                                                                                    10



16.    Mr. Bhatnagar relied on Section 17 of the Act which deals



with the jurisdiction of the State Commission.   Sections 17-A



and   17-B   were   added   by   the   2002   Amendment   of   the   Act



dealing   with   the   "Transfer   of   Cases"   and   "Circuit   Benches"



respectively.  The objects and reasons for introducing the said



provisions by way of the said amendment were as follows:



       "Objects   and   Reasons--  Clause   15   (old)   seeks   to

       insert   a   new   Section   17-A   to   empower   the   State

       Commission   to   transfer   a   case   from   one   District

       Forum to another District Forum within the State if

       required   for   the   ends   of   justice.     It   also   seeks   to

       insert another new Section 17-B to enable the State

       Commissions to hold Circuit Benches."




17.    Mr. Bhatnagar also relied on Section 22 of the Act, which



deals   with   the   power   and   procedure   of   the   National



Commission.  Before the 2002 Amendment, the said provision



was as follows:



       "22. Power   of   and   procedure   applicable   to   the

       National   Commission--  The   National  Commission

       shall,   in   the   disposal   of   any   complaints   or   any

       proceedings before it, have--



       a)     the   powers   of   a   Civil   Courts   as   specified   in

              Sub-Sections (4), (5) and (6) of Section 13;



       b)     the   power   to   issue   an   order   to   the   opposite

              party   directing   him   to   do   any   one   or   more   of

              the   things   referred   to   in   clauses   (a)   to   (i)   of

              Sub-Section (1) of Section 14,


                                                                            11



       and follow such procedure as may be prescribed by

       the Central Government."




18.    After   the   2002   Amendment,   Section   22   of   the   Act   now



reads as follows:



       "22.  Power   and   procedure   applicable   to   the

       National   Commission   --  (1)   The   provisions   of

       Sections   12,   13   and   14   and   the   rules   made

       thereunder   for   the   disposal   of   complaints   by   the

       District   Forum   shall,   with   such   modifications   as

       may   be   considered   necessary   by   the   Commission,

       be   applicable   to   the   disposal   of   disputes   by   the

       National Commission.



       (2) Without prejudice to the provisions contained in

       Sub-Section   (1),   the   National   Commission   shall

       have   the   power   to   review   any   order   made   by   it,

       when   there   is   an   error   apparent   on   the   face   of

       record."




19.    The 2002 Amendment also introduced Section 22A which



reads as follows:



       "22A.   Power   to   set   aside   ex   parte   orders.-Where

       an   order   is   passed   by   the   National   Commission   ex

       parte   against   the   opposite   party   or   a   complainant,

       as the case  may  be,  the aggrieved party  may  apply

       to the Commission to set aside the said order in the

       interest of justice."




20.    Mr.   Bhatnagar   contended   that   Section   22(2)   was



introduced in 2002 to give the National Commission the power



to review its own order.  This power could not have been used


                                                                                12



by the Commission before the amendment.  After amendment,



now   the   Commission   has   specific   power   to   set   aside   an  ex



parte  order.     This   power   has   only   been   given   to   the   National



Commission   and   not   extended   to   the   District   Forums   or   the



State   Commissions.     If   the   legislature   intended   to   give   this



power   to   the   State   Commissions   and   District   Forums   then   it



would have extended the same to those forums also.



21.    Mr.   Bhatnagar   has   also   drawn   our   attention   to   the



objects   and   reasons   for   carrying   out   the   amendment   which



reads as follows:



       "Objects   and   Reasons--  Clause   21   (old)   seeks   to

       substitute   Section   22   so   that   the   provisions   of

       Sections   12,   13   and   14   and   the   rules   made

       thereunder   for   the   disposal   of   complaints   by   the

       District   Forum,   shall,   with   such   modifications   as

       may   be   considered   necessary   by   the   Commission,

       be   applicable   to   the   disposal   of   disputes   by   the

       National Commission.  It also seeks to empower the

       National Commission to review any order made by it

       when   there   is   an   error   apparent   on   the   face   of

       record.   These   provisions   will   make   the   powers   and

       procedures   in   respect   of   the   National   Commission

       more   explicit.     It   also   seeks  to   insert   new   Sections

       22-A, 22-B and 22-C and 22-D.   New Section 22-A

       empowers the National Commission  to set aside  ex

       parte     orders   against   the   opposite   party   or

       complainant in the interest of justice........"


                                                                             13



22.    Mr. Bhatnagar submitted that the limited applicability of



the   provisions   of   the   Civil   Procedure   Code   to   the   Tribunals



under   the   Act  is   under  Section   13(4)  of  the   Act.    There  is   no



power of review or recall under the said provision.  Even under



Section 13(4)(vi), no Rule has been framed in terms of Section



30(1)   by   the   Central   Government   which   provides   power   to



review or recall of orders.




23.    Learned   senior   counsel   for   the   appellants   also   relied   on


M/s   Eureka   Estates   (P)   Ltd.  v.  A.P.   State   Consumer


Disputes   Redressal   Commission   and   Others  AIR   2005   AP


118 in which the Court observed that the District Forums and



the   State   Commissions   are   entitled   to   exercise   only   such



powers   which   are   specifically   vested   in   them   under   the   Act



and the Rules.




24.    Mr.   Bhatnagar   submitted   that   it   is   evident   from   the



Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act that the purpose



of   the   Act   is   to   provide   speedy   and   simple   redressal   to



consumer disputes.  It is for this reason that all the provisions



of   the   Civil   Procedure   Code   have   not   been   extended   to   the



Consumer Forums.  


                                                                                 14



25.    Mr. Bhatnagar further submitted that the salutary object



of   speedy   and   simple   redressal   under   the   Act   is   to   be   found



inter alia in Sections 13(2) and (3) of the Act which provide for



the   procedure   to   be   adopted   by   the   forum   in   deciding   the



complaints admitted by it.  The said provisions read as follows:


       13.  (2)   The   District   Forum   shall,   if   the   complaints

       admitted by it under Section 12 relates to goods in

       respect   of   which   the   procedure   specified   in   Sub-

       Section   (1)   cannot   be   followed,   or   if   the   complaint

       relates to any services,--



       (a) refer   a   copy   of   such   complaint   to   the   opposite

          party directing him to give his version of the case

          within   a   period   of   thirty   days   or   such   extended

          period   not   exceeding   fifteen   days   as   may   be

          granted by the District Forum;



       (b) where the opposite party, on receipt of a copy of

          the   complaint,   referred   to   him   under   clause   (a)

          denies   or   disputes   the   allegations   contained   in

          the complaint, or omits or fails to take any action

          to represent his case within the time given by the

          District Forum, the District Forum shall  proceed

          to settle the consumer dispute,--



             (i)     on   the   basis   of   evidence   brought   to   its

                     notice   by   the   complainant   and   the

                     opposite   party,   where   the   opposite   party

                     denies   or   disputes   the   allegations

                     contained in the complaint, or



             (ii)    ex parte  on the basis of evidence brought

                     to   its   notice   by   the   complainant   where

                     the   opposite   party   omits   or   fails   to   take

                     any   action   to   represent   his   case   within

                     the time given by the Forum.


                                                                              15



       (c)     where   the   complainant   fails   to   appear   on   the

               date  of  hearing   before   the   District  Forum,  the

               District   Forum   may   either   dismiss   the

               complaint for default or decide it on merits.



       (3)     No   proceedings   complying   with   the   procedure

       laid down in Sub-Sections (1) and (2) shall be called

       in   question   in   any   court   on   the   ground   that   the

       principles of natural justice have not been complied

       with."




26.    Mr.   Bhatnagar   also   relied   on   Section   12(3)   of   the   Act



which reads as follows:



       "12(3)        On   receipt   of   a   complaint   made   under

       Sub-Section   (1),   the   District   Forum   may,   by   order,

       allow   the   complaint   to   be   proceeded   with   or

       rejected:



       Provided   that   a   complaint   shall   not   be   rejected

       under   this   Sub-Section   unless   an   opportunity   of

       being heard has been given to the complainant:



       Provided   further   that   the   admissibility   of   the

       complaint shall ordinarily be decided within twenty-

       one days from the date on which the complaint was

       received."




27.    Mr.   Bhatnagar   tried   to   explain   the   legislative   intent



behind introducing Section 22-A.   According to him, only   the



National   Commission   has   been   given   power   to   set   aside  ex



parte orders and the same power has not been extended to the



District Forums or the State Commissions because against the



orders   of   the   District   Forums   and   the   State   Commissions,


                                                                          16



appeal   or   revision   can   be   filed   before   the   State   Commission



and the National Commission respectively.   But in the case of



the   orders   of   the   National   Commission,   prior   to   the



amendment,   the   parties   were   compelled   to   approach   this



Court   even   against   the   orders   by   which   the   cases   were



dismissed in default.  It became extremely expensive and time



consuming.  In this view of the matter, it became imperative to



give this power to the National Commission.




28.      According   to   the   counsel   for   the   appellants,   in  New


India   Assurance   Co.   Ltd.,   this   Court   did   not   notice   the


earlier   decision   in  Jyotsana's   case.     He   submitted   that   the



Tribunals   constituted   under   the   Consumer   Protection   Act,



1986 exercise only such powers as are expressly conferred by



the   provisions   of   the   said   Act   and   Rules   framed   thereunder.



Since   no   power   of   review   and   recall   was   conferred   on   the



District Forums and the State Commissions, they can exercise



no such power.





29.    The counter affidavit was filed by the respondents stating



that the Commission was justified in setting aside the ex parte


                                                                           17



order and  restoring the respondents' complaint.    The counter



affidavit also states   that the respondents cannot be deprived



of   their   right   without   contest   on   the   basis   of   trivial



technicalities.



30.      The respondents relied upon the judgment of this Court



in  New  India  Assurance   Co.   Ltd.    in  which   this   Court   held



that the Consumer Courts have inherent powers to restore the



complaints   dismissed   for   default.     It   is   also   stated   in   the



counter   affidavit   that   due   to   old   age,   respondent   no.1   lost



track   of   the   case   and   therefore,   the   State   Commission   was



justified in setting aside the  ex parte  order in order to ensure



that justice is done to the parties.



CIVIL APPEAL NO.8155 OF 2001



31.    In   Civil   Appeal   No.8155   of   2001,   the   National



Commission   passed   an  ex   parte  order   and   in   the   appeal



against the  order, this  Court  gave  liberty to  the appellants to



approach the Commission for setting aside the  ex parte  order.



Thereafter,   an   application   was   filed   by   the   complainants   for



review   of   the   order.     The   Commission   vide   order   dated



12.7.2001   (relied   on   the   judgment   of  Jyotsana's   case)


                                                                          18



dismissed   the   application.     Aggrieved   by   the   said   order,   the



appellant has filed this appeal.




32.    Mr.   M.S.   Ganesh,   learned   senior   counsel   appearing   on



behalf   of   the   appellants   in   Civil   Appeal   No.8155   of   2001



submitted   that   the   National   Commission   has   implied   and



inherent  power  to  recall  the   order  dated  30.5.1996   passed  in



Original Petition No.110 of 1993.




33.    Mr.   Ganesh   also   submitted   that   the   notice   of   hearing



sent   by   the   National   Commission   was   never   served   on   the



counsel   for   the   appellants   yet   the   National   Commission



proceeded to an ex parte decision on the appellants' complaint



and dismissed it on the ground of limitation.




34.    According   to   Mr.   Ganesh,   the   decision   in  Jyotsana's


case  is manifestly per incuriam.    It does not even refer to the


doctrine   of   implied   powers   and   was   not   aware   of   its



applicability.  The later decision in New India Assurance Co.


Ltd.    is expressly mindful  of the doctrine.  He submitted  that


an   external   aid   to   the   interpretation   of   the   Consumer



Protection Act, 1986 also reinforces the above construction of



the Act.


                                                                               19





35.    We   have   carefully   scrutinized   the   provisions   of   the



Consumer   Protection   Act,   1986.     We   have   also   carefully



analyzed   the   submissions   and  the   cases   cited   by   the   learned



counsel for the parties.




36.    On   careful   analysis   of   the   provisions   of   the   Act,   it   is



abundantly   clear   that   the   Tribunals   are   creatures   of   the



Statute and derive their power from the express provisions of



the Statute.   The District Forums and the State Commissions



have not been given any power to set aside ex parte orders and



power of review and the powers which have not been expressly



given by the Statute cannot be exercised.




37.    The   legislature   chose   to   give   the   National   Commission



power   to   review   its   ex   parte   orders.   Before   amendment,



against   dismissal   of   any   case   by   the   Commission,   the



consumer   had   to   rush   to   this   Court.     The   amendment   in



Section 22 and introduction of Section 22-A were done for the



convenience of the consumers.   We have carefully ascertained



the legislative intention and interpreted the law accordingly.


                                                                                 20



38.    In   our   considered   opinion,   the   decision   in  Jyotsana's


case  laid down the correct law and the view taken in the later


decision   of   this   Court   in  New   India   Assurance   Co.   Ltd.    is



untenable and cannot be sustained.




39.    In   view   of   the   legal   position,   in   Civil   Appeal   No.4307   of



2007, the findings of the National Commission are set aside as



far   as   it   has   held   that   the   State   Commission   can   review   its



own   orders.   After   the   amendment   in   Section   22   and



introduction   of   Section   22A   in   the   Act   in   the   year   2002   by



which   the   power   of   review   or   recall   has   vested   with   the



National   Commission   only.     However,   we   agree   with   the



findings   of   the   National   Commission   holding   that   the



Complaint   No.473   of   1999   be   restored  to   its  original   number



for hearing in accordance with law.




40.    There   has   been   considerable   delay   in   disposal   of   the



complaint.   Therefore,   we   direct   the   State   Commission   to



dispose   of   the   Complaint   No.473   of   1999   [in   Civil   Appeal



No.4307 of 2007] as expeditiously as possible and in any event



within   three   months   from   the   date   of   the   communication   of



this order.


                                                                                   21





41.    Similarly, in Civil Appeal No.8155 of 2001,   we set aside



the   impugned   order   and     direct   the   National   Commission   to



dispose   of   the   Original   Petition   No.110   of   2003  de   novo  as



expeditiously   as   possible   and   in   any   event   within   three



months from the date of the communication of this order.




42.    Both the appeals are disposed of accordingly.  The parties



are directed to bear their own costs.




                                                     ................................J.

                                                             (Dalveer Bhandari)




                                                     ................................J.

                                                 (Mukundakam Sharma)  




                                                      ...............................J.

                                                              (Anil R. Dave)

New Delhi;

August 19, 2011