KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No.115/2023

JUDGEMENT DATED: 21.03.2023

(Against the Order in C.C.No.294/2021 of DCDRC, Alappuzha)

PRESENT:

APPELLANT:

(by Adv. T.L. Sreeram)

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

JUDGEMENT

SRI. RANJIT R.: MEMBER

          The appellant is the opposite party in C.C.No.294/2021 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Alappuzha (in short the District Commission).  The order under appeal was passed exparte against the appellant directing them to take steps to dismantle the damaged portions of the interlock tiles in the courtyard and further to lay new interlock on the said portion with good quality tiles.  They were further directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) as compensation and Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two Thousand) as costs of the proceedings.  It is stated by the appellant that even though he had entered appearance and filed vakalath the counsel to whom he had entrusted the case did not file version in time and hence an exparte order was passed against him.  Appellant came to know about the order of the District Commission only when he received the notice in the Execution Petition filed by the respondent for executing the order.  He would further contend that he was not served with the copy of the order by the counsel and so he personally contacted the District Commission and received the order.  The appellant was set exparte only due to the laches on the part of his counsel in not filing the version.  Therefore he would contend that an opportunity may be given to him to present his case by remitting back the case so as to have de novo trial.

          2.       We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the order under challenge.  The order of the District Commission shows that even though many opportunities were given to the appellant to file version he did not file version within the statutory time limit.  Hence he was declared exparte.  In the absence of any contest, the complaint has been allowed exparte, after recording evidence of the complainant.  The said order is attacked on the ground that absolutely no evidence has been adduced by the respondent to prove the alleged defects in the interlock tiles.   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 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. 

Refund the statutory amount of Rs.6,000/-(Rupees Six Thousand) deposited by the appellant on filing proper application.

SL