KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REVISION PETITION No. 90/2022
ORDER DATED: 16.01.2023
(Against the Order in C.C. 225/2021 of CDRC, Palakkad)
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
REVISION PETITIONERS:
- Celswa Digitals Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Director, Mr. Sandeep Nair, having its registered office, 4th Floor, Chemmanam Square, P.P. Road, Perumbavoor, Ernakulam-683 542.
- Sandeep Nair, Director, Celswa Digitals Pvt. Ltd., 4th Floor, Chemmanam Square, P.P. Road, Perumbavoor, Ernakulam-683 542.
(By Advs. K.S. Arundas & Nithya S. Kumar)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
Dr. Thulika Rohan, M/s Dermatome Skin and Laser Clinic, Palakkad residing at 3/1370, Hamsam, Mission Compound Road, City P.O., Palakkad-678 014.
ORDER
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
The opposite party in C.C. No. 225/2021 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Palakkad (District Commission for short) is the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 11.11.2022 of the District Commission dismissing a petition questioning the maintainability of the complaint, filed by the revision petitioner. It is contended that, the petition has been dismissed by a cryptic order without looking into the version or the documents produced by the revision petitioner. We notice from the order under revision that the reason for rejection of the petition and the contentions of the revision petitioner is that no version was filed within time. The counsel for the revision petitioner submits that there was only a delay of two days in filing the version. According to the learned counsel, the version was filed on the 47th day. Therefore, he seeks interference with the order under revision.
2. Heard. The learned counsel appears to be under a misunderstanding that the opposite party had 45 days’ time to file their version. However, according to Sec. 38(3)(a) the time stipulated for filing version is 30 days, which period is subject an extension that may be granted by the District Commission of a maximum of 15 days. Admittedly, no extension of 15 days was granted in the present case. Therefore, the contention that there was only two days’ delay in filing the version is not correct.
3. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (2020)5 SCC 757 the time limit fixed for filing version cannot be extended beyond the statutory limit, by the District Commission or this Commission. What is stipulated by the statutory provision is that, the District Commission in such circumstances has to proceed ex-parte on the basis of the evidence brought to its notice by the complainant, to settle the consumer dispute. The counsel points out that the revision petitioner has not been set ex-parte. However, the District Commission has proceeded on the basis that the version as well as the documents produced by the opposite party cannot be looked into.
In view of the dictum of the Supreme Court referred to above, we do not find any error in the order under revision, warranting an interference therewith. Therefore this revision is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
Sd/-
T.S.P. MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER
Sd/-
RANJIT. R : MEMBER
Sd/-
BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
Sd/-
RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
jb
