This article is a guide to understanding the essentials of review application filed before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. It focuses on the provisions allowing District, State, and National Consumer Redressal Commissions (NCDRC) to review their own orders, specifically correcting errors apparent on record. We explore relevant sections of the CP Act 2019, grounds for filing a review aplication, limitation period associated with the filing of the review application, and procedures, providing clarity for both complainants and opposing parties in consumer disputes.
YOUTUBE VIDEO: For a visual and engaging guide that walks you through this article, be sure to watch our comprehensive YouTube video on this topic! We break down the legal complexities into easy-to-understand steps, helping you navigate your way to justice.
1. Introduction to Review Application Mandate
The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (CP Act 2019) provides a robust mechanism for adjudication. However, it also acknowledges the possibility of errors that may occur in orders issued by the Hon’ble Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions. To address such situations, the Act 2019 grants a limited power of review to these Hon’ble Commissions. This power permits parties to file a review application or the Hon’ble Commission, on its own, to re-examine its own orders and correct certain types of mistakes, ensuring that inadvertent errors do not compromise justice.
2. Legal Framework for Filing a Review Application under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019
The power of review is explicitly provided for Hon’ble District Commissions, Hon’ble State Commissions, and the Hon’ble National Commission under specific sections of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
2.1 Section 40 – Review Powers of Hon'ble District Consumer Commission
Section 40 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, grants the Hon’ble District Commission the authority to review its orders. The provision states:
“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.”
An Hon’ble District Commission has the authority to re-examine an order it has issued if there is an “error apparent on the face of the record.” This review can be initiated by the Commission itself (suo motu) or in response to a review application filed by any party involved in the dispute. It is important to note that the review application must be submitted within thirty days from the date of the original order.
2.2 Section 50 – Review Powers of Hon'ble State Consumer Commission
Similarly, Section 50 of the CP Act 2019 empowers the Hon’ble State Commission to review its orders. The section reads:
“The State 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.”
The scope and conditions for review by the Hon’ble State Commission are the same as those for the Hon’ble District Commission. A review can be initiated either on the commission’s own accord (suo motu) or through a review application submitted by a party. The grounds for review are based on an “error apparent on the face of the record,” and the review application must be filed within thirty days of the order.
2.3 Section 60 – Review Powers of Hon'ble National Consumer Commission
The Hon’ble National Commission also possesses the power of review under Section 60 of the CP Act 2019:
As per section 60 of the The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 Act 2019,
“The National 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.”
Again, the conditions mirror those for the Hon’ble District and State Commissions. The Hon’ble National Commission can review its orders on its own initiative or upon a review application from a party, provided there is an error apparent on the face of the record and the review application is made within thirty days of the order.
Connect with a Legal Professional
Have questions about legal matters? Book a Brief Consultation with our Advocate to receive clear, professional guidance tailored to your specific concerns. Let us assist you in navigating your Legal challenges with confidence.
3. Grounds for Seeking Review: Error Apparent on the Face of the Record
The primary and, in fact, the sole ground stipulated across Sections 40, 50, and 60 of the CP Act 2019 for seeking review is the presence of an “error apparent on the face of the record.” This is the sole ground that defines the limited scope of the review power.
An “error apparent on the face of the record” is not an error that requires a long-drawn process of reasoning or re-appreciation of evidence to detect. It must be an obvious and patent mistake, not a minor error. It implies an error that can be seen by a mere perusal of the record without any elaborate argument.
The review jurisdiction is not an appellate jurisdiction where the Hon’ble Commission can re-hear the matter on merits. It is strictly for correcting glaring mistakes that are self-evident from the record.
4. Limitation Period for Filing a Review Application
The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, under Sections 40, 50, and 60, clearly states that a review application must be made by any of the parties “within thirty days of such order.”
This time limit is further reiterated in the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020. As per Regulation 14(1)(iii), an application for review under sections 40, 50 and section 60 shall be filed to the District Commission, the State Commission and the National Commission, respectively, within thirty days from the date of the order.
This regulation reinforces the thirty-day period from the date of the order for filing a review application before the respective Hon’ble Consumer Commission.
5. Procedure for Adjudicating a Review Application
The Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020, lay down the procedure for review applications.
Regulation 15 states:
“Review.-(1) It shall set out clearly the grounds for review.” ” (2) Unless otherwise ordered by the Consumer Commission, an application for review shall be disposed of by circulation without oral arguments, as far as practicable between the same members who had delivered the order sought to be reviewed.”
This means:
- The Review Application must clearly state the grounds for seeking the review, which, as per the Act, is an “error apparent on the face of the record.”
- Generally, review applications are decided by circulation among the Hon’ble Members who originally passed the order. This means there might not be a formal oral hearing unless the Hon’ble Commission specifically orders it.
- The effort is to have the review application considered by the same Hon’ble Members who delivered the original order, as far as practicable.
6. Scenarios for Review in Consumer Commissions
The power of review can be invoked in various scenarios before any of the Hon’ble Consumer Commissions. A party aggrieved by an order of the Hon’ble Commission itself, may seek a review if, for example:
- There is a calculation error in the compensation awarded that is obvious from the record.
- A crucial statutory provision directly applicable was overlooked, and this is evident without detailed argument.
- There is a patent mistake in the names of parties or details of the subject matter that affects the order’s execution.
- Incorrect application of a settled legal principle which is obvious from the order itself.
- Overlooking a binding precedent of a higher Hon’ble Court that was on record and directly applicable, leading to a clear error.
- An evident factual mistake that is clear from the records and has materially impacted the decision.
- An error in quoting figures or dates from the record that significantly alters the basis of the order.
In all these exemplary scenarios, the review is not meant to re-argue the case or present new evidence. It is solely for correcting errors that are obvious and do not require elaborate examination.
7. Importance of the Power of Review
The power of review, though limited, holds significant importance for both the complainant and the opposite party.
7.1 From the Complainant's Perspective
For a complainant, the power of review, through the review application, offers the opportunity to rectify an obvious error without the need to go through the potentially more time-consuming and expensive process of an appeal. If there is a clear mistake in the order that is detrimental to the complainant’s interest (e.g., incorrect calculation of relief awarded, or overlooking a key document on record that proves a defect), a review application can provide a quicker remedy. It upholds the principle that a party should not suffer due to a patent error of the Hon’ble Commission.
7.2 From the Opposite Party's Perspective
Similarly, for the opposing party, the review mechanism serves as a safeguard against apparent errors that might have unfairly held them liable or imposed an incorrect penalty. If the order contains an apparent mistake of fact or law that is evident from the record (e.g., holding them liable for a product not manufactured or sold by them, when evidence on record clearly shows this, or a miscalculation of damages imposed), they can seek a review. This ensures that businesses are not unfairly punished for obvious mistakes in their orders.
8. Conclusion
The power of review vested in the Hon’ble District, State, and National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, is a vital tool for ensuring the accuracy and fairness of the adjudicatory process. While its scope is limited to “errors apparent on the face of the record” and must be exercised within the stipulated time frame of thirty days, it plays a crucial role in correcting obvious mistakes. This mechanism allows the Hon’ble Commissions to uphold the principles of justice by rectifying their own patent errors, thereby reinforcing public faith in the consumer dispute redressal system. Both complainants and opposite parties should be aware of this provision to ensure that manifest errors do not go uncorrected, contributing to a more just and effective consumer protection regime.
Disclaimer: In compliance with the Bar Council of India guidelines, this article is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a solicitation for legal services.