KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REVISION PETITION No.02/2022
ORDER DATED: 29.01.2024
(Against the Order in C.C.No.136/2019 of DCDRC, Ernakulam)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN | : | PRESIDENT |
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. | : | JUDICIAL MEMBER |
SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN | : | MEMBER |
REVISION PETITIONER/OPPOSITE PARTY:
| M/s Arya Bhangy Builders Pvt. Ltd., Aryabhangy Pinnacle, S.A. Road, Ernakulam, Kadavanthra P.O., Kochi – 682 020 represented by its Managing Director, Jibi Thomas alias George Thomas |
(by Adv. M. Unnikrishnan)
Vs.
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
| Binil Thomas, S/o K.J. Thomas, Kallarackal House, Vazhakulam P.O., Muvattupuzha Village, Pin – 686 670 |
O R D E R
HON’BLE JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN: PRESIDENT
The opposite party in C.C.No.136/2019 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (the District Commission for short) is in revision. He is aggrieved by an order dated 25.11.2020 passed by the District Commission declaring him exparte. The Revision Petitioner was set exparte for the reason that, they had not filed their version within the statutory time limit. It is contended on behalf of the Revision Petitioner that the order passed by the District Commission is wrong and is liable to be set aside.
2. According to the Revision Petitioner, on 30.01.2020 they had appeared before the District Commission and the case was posted to 25.03.2020 with a direction to file version. Since the national lockdown was declared on 24.03.2020 the version could not be filed. It was after the lockdown was lifted, on 06.07.2020 that the Revision Petitioner filed version. It is contended that, the action of the District Commission, in the circumstances, was unjustified and uncalled for.
3. We have considered the contentions put forward anxiously. Admittedly, the Revision Petitioner had appeared before the District Commission on 30.01.2020. Therefore, their written version ought to have been filed within a period of thirty days from the said date, which was not done. The lockdown imposed on 24.03.2020 will not help the Revision Petitioner because the statutory time limit for filing their version had expired long before the said date.
4. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (2020)5 SCC 757, it is not possible to extend the time limit for filing version or to receive the version filed out of time, as requested for by the Revision Petitioner. For the above reasons, the Revision Petitioner is not entitled to get the reliefs sought for. The only limited relief to which the Revision Petitioner is entitled is to be heard before the complaint is finally disposed of.
For the above reasons, this Revision Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. However, the right of the Revision Petitioner to be heard at the time of final hearing of the complaint shall remain unaffected by this order.
JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN | : | PRESIDENT |
AJITH KUMAR D. | : | JUDICIAL MEMBER |
K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN | : | MEMBER |
SL
