KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REVISION PETITION No.60/2022
ORDER DATED: 31.01.2024
(Against the Order in C.C.No.98/2022 of DCDRC, Palakkad)
PRESENT:
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. | : | JUDICIAL MEMBER |
SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN | : | MEMBER |
REVISION PETITIONER/OPPOSITE PARTY:
| M/s Orchid Builders, G.K. Tower, CBE Road, Palakkad represented by its Managing Partner C.Raj, S/o Chandran N.K. residing at Mukramkad House, Kottekkad Post, Palakkad – 678 732 |
(by Adv. Geetha Nair S.)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:
1. | Arshad M., S/o Mohammed Kasim, Vadakkethara, Nallepully Post, Palakkad |
2. | Anshad M., S/o Mohammed Kasim, Vadakkethara, Nallepully Post, Palakkad |
(by Adv. Narayan R.)
O R D E R
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
The petitioner here in is the opposite party before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Palakkad (the District Commission for short) in C.C.No.98/2022.
2. The dispute is in respect of the construction of a building in the property of the complainant. On receipt of notice issued by the District Commission,on 11.07.2022 the Revision Petitioner entered appearance through counsel and the case was adjourned to 03.08.2022. On that day the Revision Petitioner had filed his version but, the District Commission was inclined to reject the version for the reason that it was filed beyond forty five days from the date of receipt of the notice.
3. The Petitioner would submit that there was only a delay of seven days in filing the version, which according to him was caused as he was laid up with Covid-19. The petitioner would seek for setting aside the order of the District Commission.
4. The respondent/complainant entered appearance. The records from the District Commission were called for and perused. Heard both sides.
5. The District Commission had declined to receive the version filed by the Revision Petitioner for the reason that the version was filed beyond the statutory period. The records received from the District Commission would show that the Revision Petitioner had received the notice on 11.06.2022. But the version was filed only on 03.08.2022. As per Section 38(3)(a)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 the opposite party has to file version of his case within thirty days from the date of receipt of notice or within an extended period not exceeding fifteen days and if he fails to file version within the said period, Sub Section 3(b)(i)(ii) stipulates that the District Commission has to settle the consumer dispute exparte on the basis of the evidence adduced by the complainant. This time limit has to be strictly followed.
6. The Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (2020)5 SCC 757 has categorically interpreted that the District Commission or the State Commission has no power to extend the time limit stipulated in the Consumer Protection Act. If the opposite party fails to file version within the stipulated period the District Commission has no other option but to reject the version and proceed with the case by setting the opposite party exparte.
7. The District Commission has applied the law strictly in tune with the mandate stipulated by the Consumer Protection Act 2019.No error has been committed by the District Commission in rejecting the version which was filed by the Revision Petitioner after the expiry of the stipulated period. Therefore, the Revision lacks merits and it is only to be dismissed.
In the result, the Revision Petition is dismissed with liberty to the Petitioner to avail an opportunity of being heard when the case is finally disposed of by the District Commission.
AJITH KUMAR D. | : | JUDICIAL MEMBER |
K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN | : | MEMBER |
SL
