KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION No.66/2022

ORDER DATED: 16.11.2023

(Against the Order in C.C.No.70/2022 of DCDRC, Palakkad)

PRESENT:

REVISION PETITIONER/OPPOSITE PARTY:

(by Adv. G. Jayakumar)

Vs.

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

O R D E R

SRI. AJITH KUMAR  D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

          This Revision is filed under Section 17(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the opposite party in C.C.No.70/2022 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Palakkad (the District Commission for short).  The District Commission as per the order dated 30.06.2022 had refused to receive the version filed by the petitioner as the same was filed beyond the statutory period and posted the case for pre-trial steps.  Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order this revision has been filed.  According to the petitioner, notice issued by the District Commission was served on 29.04.2022 with a direction to appear on 26.05.2022.   The petitioner had appeared before the District Commission on 26.05.2022, filed vakalath and sought time for filing version and the case was adjourned to 30.06.2022.  The Revision Petitioner had filed version on 29.06.2022.  On 30.06.2022 the District Commission had rejected the version stating that the same was not filed within the statutory period.  According to the petitioner, the order passed by the District Commission is incorrect as the petitioner had filed the version within the statutory period.  So the petitioner would seek for setting aside the order of the District Commission. 

          2.       Notice was issued to the respondent/complainant but there was no representation on behalf of the complainant.  The records from the District Commission were called for.  Heard the counsel for the petitioner.  Perused the records from the District Commission.  On perusal of the case records, it could be seen that the District Commission had issued notice to the petitioner to appear before the District Commission on 26.05.2022.  Accordingly, the petitioner had appeared through counsel and on that date he was directed by the District Commission to file version within the statutory period.   The matter was posted to 30.06.2022.  On 29.06.2022, the petitioner had filed version which was rejected by the District Commission stating that the version was filed beyond the statutory period.  As per Section 13(1)(a), on receiving the notice from the District Commission the opposite party has to file version within thirty days or such extended period nOT exceeding fifteen days as may be granted by the District Commission.  If the opposite party has failed to file a version within the statutory period the District Commission has to proceed with the matter exparte on the basis of the evidence brought by the complainant.  Here admittedly, the petitioner had received notice on 29.04.2022.  So he was expected to file the version on or before 29.05.2022.   The version is seen filed on 29.06.2022.  According to the petitioner the District Commission had posted the case to 30.06.2022 and the petitioner had filed the version on 29.06.2022 i.e. one day before the stipulated time limit.  So there was no fault on his part.  On going through the proceedings of the District Commission, it could be seen that on 26.05.2022 the District Commission had directed the petitioner to file version within the statutory period.  So it was obligatory on the part of the petitioner to file version within thirty days from the date of receipt of notice.  If the petitioner fails to file the version within the statutory period, the only option for the District Commission is to pass an order exparte on the basis of the evidence let in by the complainant.

          3.       The legal position in this regard has been settled by the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (2020)5 SCC 757.  The Apex Court had declared in categorical terms that if an opposite party fails to file version within statutory period the District Commission has no right to extend the period and receive the version.  There is no illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the District Commission.  The revision lacks merits and it is only to be dismissed.

          In the result, the revision petition is dismissed.  No costs.

SL