KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REVISION PETITION No. 95/2023
ORDER DATED: 18.12.2023
(Against the Order in C.C. 278/2017 of CDRC, Thrissur)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
REVISION PETITIONER:
Tata Motors Ltd., 20th Floor, One Indiabulls Centre, Tower 2 A, 841, Senapathi Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai-400 013.
(By Advs. V. Krishna Menon & S. Reghukumar )
Vs.
RESPONDENTS:
- Ajayakumar, S/o Sankunni, Marakkath House, Mullassery Village, Mullassery Desom, Mullassery P.O., Thrissur Taluk-680 509.
- Archana Motors Pvt. Ltd., Authorized Dealer of Tata Motors Ltd., Regd. Office: VI/215/15, Grace Park, Koorkkenchery P.O., Thrissur-680 007 represented by its Manager.
ORDER
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
The revision petitioner herein is the 2nd opposite party in C.C. No 278/2017 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur (District Commission for short). The revision petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 20.10.2022 passed by the District Commission in I.A. No. 694/2022. The revision petitioner has not filed their version within the statutory time limit. For the above reason, they were declared ex-parte by the District Commission. It was to set aside the order declaring them ex-parte that I.A. 694/2022 was filed. However, the said I.A. has also been dismissed by the District Commission as per the order sought to be revised. In view of the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (2020)5 SCC 757 the proper course to be adopted by the District Commission whenever no version is filed by the opposite party within the time limit is to declare the said party ex-parte and to proceed to finally dispose of the complaint on the basis of the evidence adduced by the complainant. It is in accordance with the dictum laid down by the Apex Court that the District Commission has declared the revision petitioner ex-parte and dismissed the petition to set aside the order declaring them ex-parte. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order sought to be revised. The above being the legal position, we are not inclined to admit the revision petition or to grant any of the reliefs sought for.
However, in the dictum laid down in ARN Infrastructure India Ltd. Vs. Hara Prasad Ghosh dated 04.09.2023 (2023 Live Law (SC) 763, the Apex Court has clarified that a person who has not filed version shall be entitled to be heard before the complaint is finally disposed of. In view of the above, dismissal of this revision petition is without prejudice to the rights of the revision petitioner to address the District Commission at the time of final hearing of the complaint. This revision is ordered accordingly.
JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
AJITH KUMAR D.: JUDICIAL MEMBER
RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
jb
