KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION No. 84/2023

ORDER DATED: 26.03.2024

(Against the Order in I.A. No. 460/2023 in C.C. 181/2021 of DCDRC, Wayanad)

PRESENT:

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.                                                    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                        : MEMBER

REVISION PETITIONER:

Haridas M.P., Door No. XII-635 F, Vattankulam P.O., Kuttippala, Edappal, Malappuram-679 578.

                             (By Adv. Lakshmanan T.J.)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Abdul Nasser, S/o Abu Haji, Proprietor, Nas Bakery, Panamaram P.O., Mananthavadi Taluk, Wayanad District.

                                       (By Adv. B.A. Krishna Kumar)

ORDER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN. K.R: MEMBER

This revision petition is filed by the 1^st opposite party in C.C. No. 181/2021 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Wayanad (District Commission for short) against the order dated 13.10.2023 dismissing I.A. No.  460/2023.  Aggrieved by the said order the 1^st opposite party has filed this revision petition.

2.  The complaint pertains to the alleged defect in the electric oven supplied by the opposite parties to the complainant for his bakery.  Notices were issued to the opposite parties and the 1^st opposite party appeared before the District Commission and filed the version.  The District Commission did not accept the version and the 1^st opposite party was set ex-parte on 30.06.2023.  He filed I.A. No. 460/2023 to review the ex-parte order dated 30.06.2023.  The District Commission dismissed the I.A. on 13.10.2023.  The revision petitioner/first opposite party challenges the said order dated 13.10.2023. 

3.  Heard both sides and perused the records.  The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the case was posted to 30.06.2023 for filing version of the first opposite party.  Though version was filed before the Registry of the District Commission on that day, it was not sent to the court during the proceedings on that day.  Hence the 1^st opposite party was set ex-parte by the District Commission.  According to the learned counsel, the first opposite party has filed the version within the statutory time of 45 days and hence the ex-parte order of the District Commission is against the statutory provisions.  Hence the first opposite party filed I.A. No. 460/2023 to review the said order.  This was dismissed by the District Commission on 13.10.2023.  According to the learned counsel the order of the District Commission is unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. Hence he prayed to set aside the order of the District Commission.

4.  The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the 1^st opposite party/revision petitioner filed the version after the statutory period of 30 days.  Hence there is no error in the order of the District Commission.  The learned counsel submitted that the vakalath of the opposite party was filed on 29.05.2023 and if at all that date is taken as the date of service of notice to the first opposite party, the version should have been filed on or before 28.06.2023. The period of 30 days for filing the version expired on 28.06.2023.  Moreover, there was no prayer for extension of the time for a further period of 15 days as provided in the statute.  According to the learned counsel, the District Commission has rightly rejected the version of the first opposite party/revision petitioner and set him ex-parte. Hence he prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. 

5.  We have considered the submissions on both sides.  We observe that this revision petition is filed against the order in I.A. No. 460/2023 which was filed to review the order dated 30.06.2023 of the District Commission.  The District Commission in its order stated that they have no power to set aside the ex-parte order as the period for filing version was already over. 

6.  We notice that the complaint was filed on 09.12.2021, ie; after the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 came into force.  Section 40 of the Act confers power on the District Commission to review its own order if there is an error apparent on the face of the order. The first opposite party/ revision petitioner filed vakalath on 29.05.2023 and if it was taken as the date receipt of notice, the statutory period for filing the version was over on 28.06.2023.  As per records no prayer was made by him for extension of the period permissible under the Act.  As rightly stated by the District Commission, the statutory period for filing the version was already over and hence there is no reason to review its order dated 30.06.2023, declaring the first opposite party as ex-parte.  The order of the District commission is as per section 38(3) (b)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which is reproduced below:

“38 (3) The District commission shall, if the complaint admitted by it under sub-section (2) of section 36 relates to goods in respect of which the procedure specified in sub-section (2) cannot be followed, or if the complaint relates to any services,-

(a) refer a copy of such complaint to the opposite party directing him to give his version of the case within a period of thirty days or such extended period not exceeding fifteen days as may be granted by the District commission;

(b): if the opposite party, on receipt of a copy of the complaint, referred to him under clause (a) denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint, or omits or fails to take any action to represent his case within the time given by the District commission, it shall proceed to settle the consumer dispute –

1. on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant and the opposite party, if the opposite party denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint, or
2. ex-parte on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant, where the opposite party omits or fails to take any action to represent his case within the time given by the Commission.”

In view of the above specific provision, we do not find any error in the order of the District Commission. There is no merit in the contentions put forward by the Revision Petitioner.  The order dated 30.06.2023 of the District Commission is as per the provisions of the Act and consequently we do not find any reason to interfere with the proceedings of the District Commission in the order in the IA for reviewing the order, which is under challenge.

7.  Further, this is a case in which no version has been filed by the revision petitioner within the statutory period, despite receipt of  notice from the District Commission.  Therefore, in view of the dictum laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (2020)5 SCC 757, it is not possible for them to file a written version now. 

8. We do not find any material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order appealed against, warranting interference of this Commission under its revisional jurisdiction.

9. For the foregoing reasons, we find no grounds to allow this Revision Petition or to grant any of the reliefs sought for.  Accordingly this revision petition is dismissed.  No costs. 

However, dismissal of this Revision Petition would not stand in the way of the Revision Petitioner to be heard at the time of final hearing of the complaint C.C. No 181/2021.

AJITH KUMAR D.: JUDICIAL MEMBER

jb                                                                     RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER