ACCANOOR ASSOCIATES Vs. AKANKSHA CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order, we propose to dispose of the above noted revision petitions arising out of the orders dated 29.01.2013 and 30.10.2013 in consumer complaint no. 10/151 filed by the respondent in State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Maharashtra, Mumbai ( in short, 'the State Commission')

(2.) The impugned orders dated 29.01.2013 and 30.10.2013 are reproduced as under:

(3.) Mr. S.S.Pawar, Advocate for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been compelled to file this revision petition for setting aside ex parte order dated 29.01.2013 because in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Rajeev Hitender Pathak & Ors. Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar & Anr., 2011 9 SCC 541, the State Commission has no power to review its own order. It is contended that the absence of the petitioner on hearing dated 29.01.2013 was unintentional. The petitioner was under the impression that his counsel would appear on the date of hearing particularly when the preliminary affidavit supposed to be filed in response to the complaint was ready on 24.01.2013 and that affidavit could not be filed on 29.01.2013 because the counsel could not reach the State Commission in time and when he reached there, case had already been proceeded ex parte.