KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION No. 63/2023

ORDER DATED: 18.12.2023

(Against the Order in I.A. 384/22 in C.C. 746/2019 of CDRC, Thrissur)

PRESENT:

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

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.                                                    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                        : MEMBER

REVISION PETITIONER:

EVM Automotive India Pvt. Ltd., Angels Plaza, TVS Junction, Cochin-682 022 represented by Managing Director Sabu Johny.

         (By Advs. Sooraj A.S. & Manoj Kumar C.M.)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Ernest D. Rodriges, S/o Duglas, Puliyanath Parambil House, Thalore P.O., Thrissur-680 306.

ORDER

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

This revision petition is filed by the 1^st opposite party in C.C. No. 746/2019 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur (District Commission for short) challenging an order dated 19.05.2022 in I.A. No. 384/2022.  As per the order sought to be revised the petition filed by the revision petitioner to set aside the order declaring them ex-parte was dismissed.  They had been declared ex-parte for the reason that, no version had been filed by them within the statutory time limit.  The petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed finding that the District Commission does not have power to entertain the same.  It is aggrieved by the said order that the 1^st opposite party has filed this revision. 

2.  In view of the decision 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, neither the District Commission nor the State Commission has any power to extend the statutory time limit for filing version.  According to the Apex Court in a situation where no version is filed the proper course is to declare the opposite party ex-parte and to proceed to dispose of the complaint on the basis of the evidence produced by the complainant.  The only option to which the revision petition is entitled in the above circumstances is to be heard before the complaint is finally disposed of.  In view of the above, it shall be sufficient that this revision petition is disposed of reserving the said right of the opposite party to be heard. 

In the result, this revision petition is dismissed, but without prejudice to the rights of the revision petitioner to be heard at the time of final disposal of the complaint by the District Commission.  Ordered as above. 

JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN  : PRESIDENT

                                   AJITH KUMAR D.: JUDICIAL MEMBER

jb                                                                                            RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER