THE KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REVISION PETITION . No. 76/2022
ORDER DATED. 14/02/2024
( Against the Order in C.C. 114/2022 of CDRC,Thiruvananthapuram)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN:PRESIDENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR. D : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN. K.R : MEMBER
REVISION PETITIONERS:
- The Postmaster, General Post office, Thiruvananthapuram- 695 001.
- The Postmaster, Post Office, Nalanchira, Thiruvananthapuram- 695015.
(By Sandeep R.P, Authorized representative )
V/S
RESPONDENT:
Babu Sebastian T.J, S/o T.M. Joseph, CNRA-112, Chathiode Lane, Nalanchira P.O, Thiruvananthapuram- 695 015.
(By Adv. S. Williams )
ORDER
HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN:PRESIDENT
Heard both sides. This revision is directed against an order dated 22/10/2022 in IA.No. 387/2022 in CC.No. 114/2022 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram ( District Commission for short ).
2. The revision petitioners are the opposite parties before the District Commission. They had filed the petition in IA. 387/2022 with a prayer to accept the written version. The petition was opposed by the respondent herein. The petition has been dismissed by the District Commission as per order under revision.
3. According to the authorized representative of the revision petitioners though they had received notice in the complaint on 31-03-2022 the complaint copy was not accompanied by the documents produced by the complainant. Therefore, they had taken the said objection before the District Commission on 29-04-2022 and on that date the copies of the documents were furnished to the revision petitioners, it is contended. Therefore, the written version filed on 14-06-2022 was perfectly within the statutory time limit.
4. The above contention is opposed by the counsel for the respondent. It is pointed out by the counsel that since notice was received by the revision petitioners on 31-03-2022 the statutory time limit of 30 days had expired by the end of April 2022. In this case no extension of the period by 15 days had been granted by the District Commission. Further, it is pointed out that, the contention that the complaint copy had not been accompanied by the copies of the documents produced along with the complaint, had not been taken on 29-04-2022 on which date the revision petitioners had appeared before the District Commission. Since no such objection was taken at that time, it is contended that they are not entitled to put forward the same now. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the revision petition.
5. Heard. We have perused the order under revision. We notice that, the District Commission has proceeded on the erroneous premise that the time for filing written version had commenced only on 29-04-2022. It is for said reason that the District Commission has observed in the order that the time expired only on 14-06-2022 . It is the said mistake on the basis of which the revision petitioner has filed this revision challenging the said order. In view of the said mistake the order under revision is set aside. The District Commission shall consider IA. 387/2022 afresh on the basis of the dates mentioned hereinabove, after hearing the authorized representative of the revision petitioners. Thereafter, fresh orders shall be passed in IA. 387/22 in accordance with law taking into account, the correct time limit available for the revision petitioner. Revision is allowed as indicated above. District Commission shall issue fresh orders in IA. No. 387/2022 expeditiously.
JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN:PRESIDENT
AJITH KUMAR. D : JUDICIAL MEMBER
RADHAKRISHNAN. K. R : MEMBER
Sh/-
