Home  /  Consumer Protection Act  /  Section 60

Section 60: Review by National Commission in certain cases

Consumer Protection Act • Official Statutory Text & Practice Guide

Statutory Regulation
Legal Standard
Competent Court / Tribunal
Act 2019
Section 59 All 107 Sections of Consumer Protection Act Section 61

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 60

Section 60 confers express statutory power upon the National Commission to review any order passed by it on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record, exercisable suo motu or upon application filed within thirty days.

  • Express Substantive Power of Review: Cures the historical jurisdictional limitation under the 1986 Act by granting explicit review powers to the National Commission.
  • Strict Jurisdictional Threshold: Error Apparent on Record: Confines the scope of review strictly to errors apparent on the face of the record; review cannot be an appeal in disguise or an opportunity to re-argue concluded questions of fact or law.
  • Strict 30-Day Limitation Window: Requires the review application to be filed within thirty days of the date of the impugned order, or initiated suo motu by the Commission within a reasonable period.
Key Landmark Precedents:
  • Rajeev Hitendra Pathak v. Achyut Kashinath Karekar (2011) 9 SCC 541: The Supreme Court held that under the 1986 Act, District and State Commissions possessed no inherent or statutory power of review or recall of ex parte orders, and NCDRC had limited review; the 2019 Act intentionally introduced Section 60 to provide express statutory review.
  • Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2000) 6 SCC 224: The Supreme Court held that review jurisdiction is confined to patent, self-evident errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be exercised to rehear a matter or substitute a different plausible view on merits.
Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

In drafting a review application under Section 60, restrict grounds to patent documentary contradictions, omitted statutory provisions, or mathematical miscalculations evident from the face of the order. Never plead new evidence, alternative interpretations, or grounds requiring elaborate argument, which warrant summary dismissal.

Section 59 All 107 Sections of Consumer Protection Act Section 61