KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 322/2022

JUDGMENT DATED: 11.07.2022

(Against the Order in C.C. 87/2020 of CDRC, Thrissur)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN    : PRESIDENT

SRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH                                                       : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI.RANJIT. R                                                                   : MEMBER

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A                                              : MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                        : MEMBER

PETITIONER/APPELLANT:

The General Manager, BSNL Sanchar Bhavan, Kovilakathumpadam, TUDA Road, Thrissur-680 022.

              (By Advs. Mathews K. Philip & Russel N.)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Balan P.V., Pallimaykkal House, Kolazhy P.O., Thrissur-680 010.

JUDGMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT

This is an appeal filed against the final order dated 15.02.2022 in C.C. No. 87/2020 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur (District Commission for short).  Appellant is the opposite party in the complaint before the District Commission.  This appeal is posted before us for admission.  We have heard the counsel appearing for the appellant. 

2.  This is a case in which, the appellant had admittedly received notice from the District Commission, but according to the counsel the notice had been misplaced in the office and therefore the appellant could neither appear before the District Commission nor file version in the matter.  Therefore, the District Commission had proceeded to set the appellant ex-parte and to decide the Consumer Complaint on the basis of the evidence produced by the complainant.  The appellant is aggrieved by the said order.

3.  A Constitution Bench of the Apex Court has in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (2020)5 SCC 757 held that the maximum time that is available for an opposite party to file version after receipt of notice in a complaint is 30 days, which can be extended by the Commission by a period of 15 days.  It has been categorically held that no extension beyond the total period of 45 days contemplated by the enactment could be granted by any authority.  It has been further held that the proper course available for the District Commission in such a situation would be to dispose of the complaint finally, ex-parte.  It is the said procedure that has been adopted by the District Commission in the present case.  Though the contention of the counsel for the appellant is that, they have a good case to be pleaded and proved and that they may be given a further chance to do so, we are not able to accept the same because of the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court.  The above being the position of law, no purpose would be served by admitting this appeal.  Therefore, this appeal is dismissed. 

The office shall refund the statutory deposit made by the appellant at the time of filing this appeal, on proper acknowledgment.

JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN  : PRESIDENT

                                      T.S.P. MOOSATH  : JUDICIAL MEMBER

                  RANJIT. R                : MEMBER

                                                                                               BEENA KUMARY. A         : MEMBER

                                                                                              RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER

jb