KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
I.A. No. 1479/2022 in APPEAL No. 604/2022
ORDER DATED: 01.08.2023
(Against the Order in C.C. 522/2019 of CDRC, Thrissur)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS:
- Janamithra Chitts Pvt. Ltd., Ambalath Building, Thripprayar, Pin Code-680 566 represented by the Chairman.
- Chairman, Janamithra Chitts Pvt. Ltd., Ambalath Building, Thripprayar represented by the Chairman, Abdu, S/o Abdul Rahiman, Puthiya Veettil, Thanyam Village, Peringottukara Desom, Thrissur-680 566.
(By Advs. M. Anuroop & Murshid Ali M.)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
Gracy Vincent, W/o Vincent, Arakkal House, Alukkas Castle, Flat No. 7 B, Ayyanthole, Thrissur-680 003 having permanent address at Arakkal House, S.N. Park, Poothole P.O, Pin-680 004.
ORDER
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
The appellant was the second opposite party in C.C. No. 522/2019 before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Thrissur (will be referred as District Commission in short).
2. On 01.07.2020 the District Commission had passed an order directing the appellant to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum along with costs of Rs. 3,000/-. Being aggrieved by the above order the appellant had preferred this appeal. But a delay of 850 days occurred in filing the appeal. To condone the delay the instant application has been filed. The reason attributed for the delay is that the petitioner had instructed the clerk attached to the office of his advocate to obtain the certified copy of the order and copy was obtained on 17.02.2022. According to the appellant the actual delay is only 135 days after deducting the period exempted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court during the spread of Covid-19.
3. On 15.07.2020 the petitioner had filed an application before the District Commission to set aside the ex-parte order but the District Commission dismissed the petition on the reason that the final order was passed on 01.07.2020.
4. The case of the complainant is that he was a subscriber of 5 Chitties/ kuries with the respondent and she had paid Rs. 1,50,000/- towards the chitties, but after maturity the amount was not paid to her. So she filed a complaint before the police but still the amount was not paid. According to the complainant one Mr. Peter who was the Manager of the Chitty Company had enrolled her in the Kuri. Sri. Peter had called of the kuri without the knowledge of the complainant and she had initiated action against Peter. After two years the complainant filed the complaint before the District Commission.
5. On 18.11.2019 the appellant appeared before the District Commission through counsel. The case was posted for filing version to 15.11.2019, 06.12.2019 and later posted to 23.01.2020 on which date evidence was recorded and posted to 22.04.2020 for further evidence. Thereafter the case was adjourned on several dates. On 15.07.2020 the appellant filed an application to set aside the order setting him ex-patre. This petition was dismissed for the reason that the final order was already passed on 01.07.2020.
6. Respondent entered appearance, but no counter has been filed.
7. Heard the counsel for the petitioner, perused the appeal memorandum.
8. On receipt of notice the petitioner had appeared before the District Commission on 18.11.2019 but no version was filed within 45 days from the date of receipt of notice. Legal position in this regard is well settled by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2020)5 SCC 757 that the District Commission has no power to receive version filed after 45 days from the date of receipt of the notice from the District Commission. This ruling had only prospective application but later the Apex Court in “M/s Daddy’s Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Manisha Bhargava and another” reported in 2021(3) SCC 669 clarified that the procedure prescribed in Hilli Multi Purpose is having retrospective application as the statute is clear in this regard. Here the petitioner had failed to file the version within the time frame fixed by the Consumer Protection Act and hence he cannot contest the matter on merits. So no purpose will be served in admitting the appeal. Therefore this petition is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, this petition is dismissed.
JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
jb
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 604/2022
JUDGMENT DATED: 01.08.2023
(Against the Order in C.C. 522/2019 of CDRC, Thrissur)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
APPELLANTS:
- Janamithra Chitts Pvt. Ltd., Ambalath Building, Thripprayar, Pin Code-680 566 represented by the Chairman.
- Chairman, Janamithra Chitts Pvt. Ltd., Ambalath Building, Thripprayar represented by the Chairman, Abdu, S/o Abdul Rahiman, Puthiya Veettil, Thanyam Village, Peringottukara Desom, Thrissur-680 566.
(By Advs. M. Anuroop & Murshid Ali M.)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
Gracy Vincent, W/o Vincent, Arakkal House, Alukkas Castle, Flat No. 7 B, Ayyanthole, Thrissur-680 003 having permanent address at Arakkal House, S.N. Park, Poothole P.O, Pin-680 004.
JUDGMENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
The appeal has been filed after elapsing the period prescribed. The petition filed as I.A. No. 1479/2022 for the condonation of delay stands dismissed. So the appeal is also dismissed.
The statutory deposit made by the appellant at the time of filing the appeal is ordered to be refunded on proper acknowledgment.
JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
jb
