KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No.104/2023

JUDGEMENT DATED: 27.02.2023

(Against the Order in C.C.No.45/2019 of DCDRC, Kottayam)

PRESENT:

APPELLANT:

(by Adv. Vimal Dev)

Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

JUDGEMENT

SRI. RANJIT R.: MEMBER

          This appeal filed by the 1^st opposite party came up for admission.  This appeal is preferred against the order dated 20.02.2022 in C.C.No.45/2019 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kottayam (in short the District Commission).  By this order the 1^st opposite party/appellant is directed to refund an amount of Rs.1,93,000/-(Rupees One Lakh Ninety Three Thousand) to the son of the complainant within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order failing which the amount would carry interest @6% per annum.

          2.       The 1^st opposite party/appellant did not appear on the date fixed for appearance i.e. on 17.08.2019.  Therefore, he was set exparte.  Thereafter, the complaint was allowed exparte against them.  It is stated that the appellant came to know about the order of the District Commission only when they received notice in E.A.No.18/2022 filed by the respondent for executing the order.

          3.       The order of the District Commission shows that notice had been served on the petitioners on 17.08.2019 in C.C.No.45/2019 but, they had neither appeared nor filed their version.  In the absence of any contest the complaint has been allowed exparte, after recording the evidence of the complainant.  The said order is attacked on the ground that absolutely no evidence has been adduced by the respondent/ complainant to prove the alleged manufacturing defect.  However, what is laid down by the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (2020)5 SCC 757  is that, in a case where the opposite parties do not file version within the statutory time limit of thirty days stipulated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (the Act for short), the proper course to be adopted is to declare such opposite party exparte and proceed to decide the consumer dispute “on the basis of the evidence brought to its notice by the complainant”, [Section 38 (3)(b)(ii)].

          3.       The above being the position of law, we are not satisfied that any purpose would be served by admitting this appeal. 

          In the result, the appeal is dismissed.  No costs.

Refund the statutory amount of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) deposited by the appellants, to him, on proper application.

SL