Rajeev Hitendra Pathak v. Achyut Kashinath Karekar, (2011) 9 SCC 541
Rajeev Hitendra Pathak v. Achyut Kashinath Karekar, (2011) 9 SCC 541
Versus
WITH
Versus
JUDGMENT
Dalveer Bhandari, J.
recapitulated as under:
Home as she was suffering from the ailment of slip disc. The
held that the State Commission did not have the power to
(2000) 3 SCC 242, this Court took the contrary view and held
order.
and derive their powers only from the express provisions of the
as follows:
that the consumer tribunals can derive powers only from the
observed as under:
was as follows:
reads as follows:
reads as follows:
to review its own order. This power could not have been used
12
parte order. This power has only been given to the National
reads as follows:
118 in which the Court observed that the District Forums and
Consumer Forums.
14
inter alia in Sections 13(2) and (3) of the Act which provide for
parte orders and the same power has not been extended to the
India Assurance Co. Ltd., this Court did not notice the
no such power.
technicalities.
the Act.
19
have not been given any power to set aside ex parte orders and
power of review and the powers which have not been expressly
case laid down the correct law and the view taken in the later
far as it has held that the State Commission can review its
this order.
21
…………………………..J.
(Dalveer Bhandari)
…………………………..J.
(Mukundakam Sharma)
……….…………………J.
(Anil R. Dave)
New Delhi;
August 19, 2011