KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REVISION PETITION No. 53/2023
ORDER DATED: 07.08.2023
(Against the Order in C.C. 592/2022 of CDRC, Ernakulam)
PRESENT:
SRI. AJITH KUMARD. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
REVISION PETITIONER:
Harshi Mathur, CEO, Razorpay Software Private Ltd., 1st Floor, SJR Cyber.22, Laskar Hosur Road, Adugodi, Bangluru, Karnataka-560 030.
(By Adv. Jinish Paul)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
Firos C., S/o Alavi C., Chakkachan House, Eranjimangad P.O., Malappuram-679 329.
ORDER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN. K.R: MEMBER
The revision petition is filed by the opposite party in C.C. No. 592/2022 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (District Commission for short). As per the order dated 15.05.2023 the revision petitioner/opposite party was set ex-parte by the District Commission as the version was filed beyond the statutory period. Aggrieved by the said order this revision is filed.
2. The complainant/respondent started the business of OTT platform and applied for providing payment gateway by the revision petitioner. The complaint has been filed by the respondent herein seeking compensation for the alleged deficiency in service on the part of revision petitioner due to the delay in processing the payments initiated by his customers.
3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner. It is submitted by the revision petitioner that when the case was posted on 04.01.2023 the complainant was absent and there was no representation and posted to 13.01.2023 directing the appearance of the complainant. On 13.01.2023 also the complainant was absent. However, notice was ordered to the opposite party and posted to 03.03.2023. The petitioner received notice along with a copy of the complaint on 18.02.2023 directing the petitioner to appear before the District Commission on 03.03.2023. On 03.03.2023 the petitioner had appeared through counsel by filing vakalath and sought for the entire set of complaint along with annexure/documents relied on by the complainant for the purpose of preparation and filing of version. Accordingly the case was posted to 15.05.2023 for serving the entire set of complaint and for version. On 15.05.2023 the petitioner filed version despite the entire set of documents annexed with the complaint was not served on the petitioner. However, the revision petitioner was set ex-parte by the District Commission for the reason that the version was filed belatedly. According to him the order is illegal and unsustainable. On the above grounds, the Revision Petitioner sought interference with the order under revision. He prayed for allowing the revision petition and setting aside the impugned order of the District Commission.
4. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perused the records. He submitted that though the version filed beyond the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of notice in the complaint cannot be accepted by the District Commission in the light of the legal position affirmed by the Apex Court, that cannot be a ground to set the petitioner ex-parte in the present matter especially because of the ‘incomplete service’ which may lead to a situation where the petitioner would lose his basic legal right to defend and substantiate the legal/factual contentions while filing version. The District Commission ought to have ensured that the service is complete as regards the complaint to the opposite party in all legal perspective as stipulated under Regulation 10(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner prayed for setting aside the order dated 15.05.2023 of the District commission and direct the District Commission to accept the version filed by the revision petitioner by invoking the power under Sec. 47 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
5. The primary issue in this case is regarding proper service of notice to the opposite party/revision petitioner and filing of their written version as per the relevant provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The revision petitioner admitted having received the notice on 18.02.2023. The District Commission has stated in the proceedings dated 15.05.2023 that the version was filed after the statutory time limit and hence the opposite party was set ex-parte. Proceedings dated 15.05.2023 of the District Commission is reproduced below:
“Complainant present in person. Opposite party represented. Version filed. Notice to opposite party seen served on 18.02.2023 as per proof of delivery of the postal department. Opposite party filed Vakkalath on 24.03.2023. Opposite party filed version today. Statutory time limit expired on 04.04.2023 (30+15). Version belated. Hence opposite party is set ex-parte. For evidence of the complainant. Adjourned to 25.07.2023”.
6. Absolutely, no evidence has been produced by the revision petitioner to show that the proceedings of the District Commission is erroneous in any manner. The order of the District commission is as per section 38(3) (b)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which is reproduced below:
“38 (3) The District commission shall, if the complaint admitted by it under sub-section (2) of section 36 relates to goods in respect of which the procedure specified in sub-section (2) cannot be followed, or if the complaint relates to any services,-
(a) refer a copy of such complaint to the opposite party directing him to give his version of the case within a period of thirty days or such extended period not exceeding fifteen days as may be granted by the District commission;
(b): if the opposite party, on receipt of a copy of the complaint, referred to him under clause (a) denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint, or omits or fails to take any action to represent his case within the time given by the District commission, it shall proceed to settle the consumer dispute –
- on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant and the opposite party, if the opposite party denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint, or
- ex-parte on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant, where the opposite party omits or fails to take any action to represent his case within the time given by the Commission.”
In view of the above specific provision, we do not find any error in the order of the District Commission. The order dated 15.05.2023 of the District Commission is as per the provisions of the Act and we do not find any reason to interfere with the proceedings of the District Commission.
7. Further, this is a case in which no version has been filed by the appellant, though revision petitioner had received notice from the District Commission. Therefore, in view of the dictum laid down by the Constitution Bench 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 for him to file a written version now. For the above reason, there is no point in admitting this revision or calling for the Lower Court Records.
8. We do not find any material irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference of this Commission under its revisional jurisdiction. There is no merit in the contentions put forward by the Revision Petitioner.
9. In view of the above, we find no grounds to admit this Revision Petition or to grant any of the reliefs sought for.
This revision fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
AJITH KUMARD. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
jb
