Home  /  Consumer Protection Act  /  Section 40

Section 40: Review by District Commission in certain cases

Consumer Protection Act • Official Statutory Text & Practice Guide

Statutory Regulation
Legal Standard
Competent Court / Tribunal
Act 2019
Section 39 All 107 Sections of Consumer Protection Act Section 41

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 40

Section 40 introduces a transformative statutory review power for the District Commission, authorizing it to review any 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 party within thirty days of such order. This provision fundamentally overhauls the legal landscape by overcoming the historical jurisdictional limitation laid down in Rajeev Hitendra Pathak.

  • Express Conferment of Statutory Review Power: Explicitly vests the District Commission with the jurisdiction to review its own orders, curing the major statutory defect of the 1986 Act which lacked review powers.
  • Ground Confined to Error Apparent on the Face of the Record: Review jurisdiction is strictly limited to patent, obvious, and self-evident errors of law or fact visible on the surface of the record without requiring elaborate examination or rehearing on merits.
  • Dual Trigger and Strict 30-Day Limitation: Can be exercised either suo motu by the Commission or on an application by an aggrieved party, subject to a strict limitation period of thirty days from the date of the order.
Key Landmark Precedents:
  • Rajeev Hitendra Pathak v. Achyut Kashinath Karekar (2011) 9 SCC 541: Under the 1986 Act, the Supreme Court held that District Forums and State Commissions had no statutory power to review or recall their own orders, and ex-parte orders could only be challenged in appeal. Parliament enacted Section 40 in the 2019 Act specifically to overcome this ruling and confer statutory review powers.
  • Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati (2013) 8 SCC 320: The Supreme Court laid down the definitive test for 'error apparent on the face of the record', holding that a review petition cannot be an appeal in disguise; an error must be manifest on the face of the record and not something requiring long-drawn process of reasoning.
  • Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi (1997) 8 SCC 715: Established that a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record warrants review, but an erroneous decision on merits can only be corrected in appeal, not under review jurisdiction.
Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

When drafting an application under Section 40, frame the error strictly as an 'error apparent on the face of the record' (e.g., patent mathematical miscalculation of awarded compensation, omission to consider an undisputed receipt on record, or an ex-parte order passed when the summons was returned unserved). Do not re-argue the substantive merits or tender fresh evidence, as that will result in summary rejection. File within 30 days strictly, as the limitation period runs from the order date.

Section 39 All 107 Sections of Consumer Protection Act Section 41