KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REVIEW APPLICATION Nos. 17/2023 to 27/2023
COMMON ORDER DATED: 31.07.2023
PRESENT:
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
REVIEW APPLICATION No. 17/2023
REVIEW PETITIONER:
C.P. John, Chandraviruthil House, Kulakkadu, Thiruvalla, Pathanamthitta.
(By Adv. Kurian Joseph)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
K.M. Jacob, Kurayil Plavila House, Perumanoor P.O., Valakam, Kottarakkara, Kollam.
(By Advs. Sunil Narayanan & C.S. Rajmohan)
REVIEW APPLICATION No. 18/2023
REVIEW PETITIONER:
C.P. John, Chandraviruthil House, Kulakkadu, Thiruvalla, Pathanamthitta.
(By Adv. Kurian Joseph)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
Issac Mathew, Meenchirakkal House, Mezhuveli, Kaipuzha North P.O., Kulanada, Pathanamthitta.
(By Advs. Sunil Narayanan & C.S. Rajmohan)
REVIEW APPLICATION No. 19/2023
REVIEW PETITIONER:
C.P. John, Chandraviruthil House, Kulakkadu, Thiruvalla, Pathanamthitta.
(By Adv. Kurian Joseph)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
M.P. Abraham, S/o Joseph Pothen, Malayil House, West Othera P.O., Thiruvalla, Pathanamthitta.
(By Advs. Sunil Narayanan & C.S. Rajmohan)
REVIEW APPLICATION No. 20/2023
REVIEW PETITIONER:
C.P. John, Chandraviruthil House, Kulakkadu, Thiruvalla, Pathanamthitta.
(By Adv. Kurian Joseph)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
Mariyamma George, Ambyil, Punthala P.O., Venmoney, Chengannur, Alappuzha-689 509.
(By Advs. Sunil Narayanan & C.S. Rajmohan)
REVIEW APPLICATION No. 21/2023
REVIEW PETITIONER:
C.P. John, Chandraviruthil House, Kulakkadu, Thiruvalla, Pathanamthitta.
(By Adv. Kurian Joseph)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
Hans P. Thomas, Ittimapadathu Karroor, Karackal P.O., Thiruvalla, Pathanamthitta-69105.
(By Advs. Sunil Narayanan & C.S. Rajmohan)
REVIEW APPLICATION No. 22/2023
REVIEW PETITIONER:
C.P. John, Chandraviruthil House, Kulakkadu, Thiruvalla, Pathanamthitta.
(By Adv. Kurian Joseph)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
K. Mathai, Kurayil Plavila Ebeneser Cottage, Near Railway Station, Thiruvalla, Pathanamthitta.
(By Advs. Sunil Narayanan & C.S. Rajmohan)
REVIEW APPLICATION No. 23/2023
REVIEW PETITIONER:
C.P. John, Chandraviruthil House, Kulakkadu, Thiruvalla, Pathanamthitta.
(By Adv. Kurian Joseph)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
John Thomas, Valiyaparambil Peace Bunglow, Pennukkara P.O., Chengannur, Alappuzha.
(By Advs. Sunil Narayanan & C.S. Rajmohan)
REVIEW APPLICATION No. 24/2023
REVIEW PETITIONER:
C.P. John, Chandraviruthil House, Kulakkadu, Thiruvalla, Pathanamthitta.
(By Adv. Kurian Joseph)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
Saji Chacko, Thundiyil Ebenezer, Kavumbhagom P.O., Thiruvalla, Pathanamthitta.
(By Advs. Sunil Narayanan & C.S. Rajmohan)
REVIEW APPLICATION No. 25/2023
REVIEW PETITIONER:
C.P. John, Chandraviruthil House, Kulakkadu, Thiruvalla, Pathanamthitta.
(By Adv. Kurian Joseph)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
P.K. Jacob, S/o Kuruvila, Plamuttatu Parambil House, Manjadi P.O., Thiruvalla, Pathanamthitta.
(By Advs. Sunil Narayanan & C.S. Rajmohan)
REVIEW APPLICATION No. 26/2023
REVIEW PETITIONER:
C.P. John, Chandraviruthil House, Kulakkadu, Thiruvalla, Pathanamthitta.
(By Adv. Kurian Joseph)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
Jacob Chacko, Panikkaru Veedu, Manaparampil, Karakkal P.O., Thiruvalla, Pathanamthitta-689 108.
(By Advs. Sunil Narayanan & C.S. Rajmohan)
REVIEW APPLICATION No. 27/2023
REVIEW PETITIONER:
C.P. John, Chandraviruthil House, Kulakkadu, Thiruvalla, Pathanamthitta.
(By Adv. Kurian Joseph)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
Jacob Chacko, Panikkaru Veedu, Karakkal P.O., Thiruvalla, Pathanamthitta-689 108.
(By Advs. Sunil Narayanan & C.S. Rajmohan)
COMMON ORDER
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
These 11 Review Petitions have been filed by Sri. C.P. John seeking review of the orders passed against him in C.C. Nos. 3/2010, 30/2010, 22/2012, 30/2013, 59/2013, 01/2014, 03/2014, 21/2014, 53/2014, 58/2014 and 24/2015. These eleven petitions were registered as Review Application Nos. 17/2023, 18/2023, 19/2023, 20/2023, 21/2023, 22/2023, 23/2023, 24/2023, 25/2023, 26/2023 and 27/2023 respectively.
2. Since same contentions are raised in all petitions, for the sake of convenience and to avoid wastage of time they are discussed together and disposed of by a single order.
3. The review petitioner was one of the opposite parties in these cases. All these cases were disposed of by this Commission on the dates noted below:
- C.C. No. 03/2010 - 28.06.2013
- C.C. No. 30/2010 - 31.12.2012
- C.C. No. 22/2012 - 28.01.2013
- C.C. No. 30/2013 - 28.08.2014
- C.C. No. 59/2013 - 22.05.2014
- C.C. No. 01/2014 - 29.09.2014
- C.C. No. 03/2014 - 29.09.2014
- C.C. No. 21/2014 - 29.04.2015
- C.C. No. 53/2014 - 27.01.2015
- C.C. No. 58/2014 - 24.07.2015
- C.C. No. 24/2015 - 07.10.2016.
The petitioner attributes error apparent on the face of the records in all these orders and hence he seeks for review of the orders.
4. The following contentions have been raised to substantiate his case: Notices in the cases were not served on the petitioner as he was out of India. The notices sent by Registered post were returned with endorsement that the "addressee left India". Thereafter notice by substituted service were effected and publication was effected in a Malayalam daily having circulation in Thiruvalla. The review petitioner is not a subscriber of the above daily. No affixture was also effected. The petitioner had lost an opportunity to contest the matter on merits. Petitioner came to know about the ex-parte orders on 12.06.2023 while he was in judicial custody in L.P. Case No.17/2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, Thiruvalla.
5. The counsel for the complainants strongly opposed the application. They submitted that the petitioner had collected huge amounts from the complainants and left India with a view to defraud the creditors. It is also submitted that they had filed execution petitions and taken steps to procure the presence of the petitioner and they had even addressed the Interpol to bring back the petitioner to India. It is also submitted that the petitioner had appeared in two cases numbered as C.C. No. 3/2010 & C.C. No. 30/2010. The complainants submitted that the only intention of the petitioner is to make the whole procedures in the Consumer Commission a mockery.
6. Heard the counsel for the Petitioner and the complainants. At the time of hearing, few complainants also appeared and submitted their helpless condition in not getting the order executed. On perusal of the records in C.C. Nos. 03/2010 & 30/2010 it could be seen that the petitioner had appeared and filed versions and contested his case in these two matters. So, the plea that the petitioner was unaware about the orders is apparently wrong. The petitioner would allege that he was abroad. But he never mentioned the country in which he was staying at the relevant time. The publication was made in a daily having circulation in the area where the petitioner’s permanent residence situates. It is also significant to note that the address shown in the vakalaths filed in support of the present petitions is the same as shown in the cases disposed of by this Commission.
7. On a perusal of the records in all these 11 cases we could not find any error apparent on the face of the records so as to review the orders. As per Rule 14 of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations 2020 a review petition has to be filed within 30 days from the date of order and not from the date of knowledge. The order dates of the disputed cases stretch from the year 2012 to 2016 which fact points out towards the inordinate delay in filing the review petitions. Since the review petitions are hopelessly delayed, we find no scope to entertain them.
7. All the cases are in respect of defrauding the complainants involving huge money, that too in respect of the period from 2003 to 2006. Therefore it is understood that these petitions are filed with a view to delay the execution procedures of the orders passed in the above cases. All these eleven petitions are dismissed as unsustainable.
AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
jb
