KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 411/2022
JUDGMENT DATED: 26.09.2024
(Against the Order in C.C. 250/2018 of DCDRC, Kozhikode)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
APPELLANT:
Anil Kumar, Edavana House, Kizhppayur P.O., Calicut-673 524.
(By Advs. S. Girija & Soumya G.)
-
RESPONDENTS:
- Honda Car Roadside Assistance, C/o Honda Cars (India) Ltd., Plot No. A-1, Surajpur, Kasna Road, Greater Noida Industrial Development Area, District Gautham Budha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh-201 306.
(By Adv. Narayan R.)
- The Manager, Apco Honda, Apco Cars (Pvt) Ltd., 27/1640, Behind MIMS Hospital, Minibypass Road, Calicut-673 016.
- The Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, No. 1, Seema Building, General Hospital Road, Palayam, Calicut-673 001.
JUDGMENT
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
The appellant is the complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kozhikode, (“the District Commission” for short), who in this appeal challenges the order dated 18.07.2022 passed by the District Commission in C.C. No. 250/2018, dismissing the complaint for default.
2. Heard both sides.
3. It is contended by the appellant that the case was posted for evidence and the affidavit in lieu of his examination-in-chief was filed on 03.09.2019. But the evidence was not taken on that day. Thereafter, due to Covid-19 pandemic, all courts were closed. Meanwhile, the appellant met with an accident, sustaining severe injuries on his right shoulder and hence he was under treatment at the time of evidence of the case after the Covid-19 pandemic. In the said circumstances, the appellant was unable to attend the court or approach his lawyer, as the court was nearly 50 kms away from his place of residence.
4. It appears from the proceedings of the District Commission that the case stood posted to 03.09.2019. On that date, the appellant filed affidavit in lieu of his examination-in-chief and the case was adjourned to 17.10.2019 and from that date to 16.11.2019. The case was again adjourned to 21.01.2020. Thereafter, due to Covid-19 pandemic, the case could not be taken up. After the pandemic, when the case was taken up on 29.11.2021, the appellant was absent and there was also no representation for the appellant. However, subsequently, on four occasions, when the case was called, the appellant was represented. Eventually, the learned counsel for the appellant had made an endorsement ‘no instruction’. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant could not approach his lawyer only because of the injuries sustained by him in connection with the accident. Having gone through the relevant inputs, including the difficulties being faced during Covid-19 pandemic, we are of the view that it is only just and proper to grant one more opportunity to the appellant to contest the case on merits, particularly when we are satisfied that there was sufficient reason for the non-appearance of the appellant before the District Commission for evidence. That apart, the appellant was not grossly negligent in prosecuting the matter. The proceedings of the District Commission would show that before Covid-19 pandemic, the appellant was prosecuting the case promptly.
In view of the above, this appeal stands allowed, setting aside the order dismissing the complaint and the complaint stands restored to the files of the District Commission. The District Commission will proceed with the complaint in accordance with law. The proceedings of the complaint shall stand relegated to the stage prior to the dismissal of the complaint on 18.07.2022.
The parties shall appear before the District Commission on 19.11.2024 without further notice.
JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
jb RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
