Home  /  Consumer Protection Act  /  Section 50

Section 50: Review by State Commission in certain cases

Consumer Protection Act • Official Statutory Text & Practice Guide

Statutory Regulation
Legal Standard
Competent Court / Tribunal
Act 2019
Section 49 All 107 Sections of Consumer Protection Act Section 51

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 50

Section 50 introduces an express statutory power of review for the State 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. It corrects the historical lack of review power under the 1986 Act identified in Rajeev Hitendra Pathak.

  • Express Conferment of Statutory Review Jurisdiction: Overcomes the limitation under the 1986 Act, endowing the State Commission with explicit authority to review its original or appellate orders.
  • Ground Strictly Confined to Error Apparent on Face of Record: Limited to patent, self-evident errors of law or fact that do not require lengthy deductive reasoning or fresh assessment of evidence.
  • Dual Trigger and Strict 30-Day Limitation: Can be exercised suo motu by the State Commission or on an application filed by any party within thirty days from the date of the order.
Key Landmark Precedents:
  • Rajeev Hitendra Pathak v. Achyut Kashinath Karekar (2011) 9 SCC 541: The Supreme Court held that under the 1986 Act, State Commissions possessed no power to review or recall their own orders. Section 50 was enacted specifically to overcome this statutory void.
  • State of West Bengal v. Kamal Sengupta (2008) 8 SCC 612: The Supreme Court held that review jurisdiction is not an appellate proceeding in disguise; an error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident, such as an omission to apply a binding statutory provision or a patent clerical or calculation error.
  • Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2000) 6 SCC 224: Reaffirmed that review power is to be exercised strictly to prevent miscarriage of justice where a patent error of law or fact vitiates the judgment.
Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

File a review application under Section 50 within thirty days strictly. Confine the pleadings to patent errors visible on the face of the record (e.g., an obvious arithmetical miscalculation of interest, omission to apply a binding judgment of the Supreme Court cited at the hearing, or recorded failure to appreciate an admitted payment receipt). Do not attempt to tender new documents or re-argue questions of fact, as that will attract dismissal with costs.

Section 49 All 107 Sections of Consumer Protection Act Section 51