KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 292/2023
JUDGMENT DATED: 05.06.2023
(Against the Order in C.C. 257/2022 of CDRC, Malappuram)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
APPELLANT:
Canara Bank, Main Branch, represented by Chief Manager, C.H. Bypass Road, Manjeri, Malappuram-676 121.
(By Adv. P. Balakrishnan)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
Ahammed Ali Salman, S/o Ahammed, V.K.M Wood Industries, Mundithodika, Melangadi, Pookottoor P.O., Malappuram-676 517.
JUDGMENT
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
The opposite party in C.C. No. 257/2022 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Malappuram (District Commission for short) is the appellant. The appellant is aggrieved by the final order dated 27.03.2023 of the District Commission, allowing the complaint. As per the said order, the appellant has been directed to refund an amount of Rs. 48,625/- and a further amount of Rs. 21,383/- to the respondent/complainant as excess amounts collected from him. An amount of Rs. 50,000/- has been awarded as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as costs.
2. According to the appellant, the order of the District Commission is liable to be set aside. A number of grounds have been taken in the memorandum of appeal. We have also heard the counsel for the appellant.
3. This appeal is posted before us for admission. The counsel has sought for a stay of the order appealed against also. However, a perusal of the order of the District Commission shows that the appellant had been served with notice in the complaint on 28.07.2022. Thereupon they had appeared through their counsel. But they filed their version only on 11.10.2022, after the expiry of the statutory time limit stipulated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. In the above circumstances, the District Commission had set them ex-parte and had proceeded to dispose of the complaint on the merits. We find that, the evidence on the side of the complainant forms the basis of the order passed by the District Commission. Since no version was filed by the appellant, it is not possible to permit them to file version or to put forward their case now. Therefore, no purpose will be served by admitting this appeal. The procedure adopted by the District Commission is in compliance with the provisions of law and the dictum laid down by the Apex Court.
For the above reasons, this appeal is dismissed.
JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
jb
