KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION No. 39/2021

ORDER DATED: 23.08.2023

(Against the Order in C.C. 745/2019 of CDRC, Thrissur)

PRESENT:

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.                                                    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                        : MEMBER

REVISION PETITIONERS:

1. M/s Thrissur Builders (P) Ltd., Machingal Lane, North End, Thrissur-680 001 represented by its M.D. Mr. K.A. Padmakumar.

2. K.A. Padmakumar, Managing Director, M/s Thrissur Builders (P) Ltd., Akshaya, Poothole, Thrissur-680 001.

(By Adv. Sandeep T. George)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. K.P. Apartment Owners Association, Krishnaprabha Apartment, Aanakotta Road, Guruvayur-680 103.

2. Ramadas Nair, President, K.P. Apartment Owners Association, Kottarathil House, B9 Krishnaprabha Apartment, Aanakotta Road, Guruvayur-680 103.

          (By Adv. C.D. Pradeep)

ORDER

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.: JUDICIAL MEMBER

The Revision Petitioner was the opposite party in C.C. No.745/2019 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur (will be referred to as District Commission for brevity) challenging the order of the District Commission dated 08.03.2021 in setting the revision petitioner ex-parte.

2.  The complaint was filed by a Registered Association by name “K.P. Apartment Owners Association" represented by its Managing Director alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice claiming Rs. 25,000/- for flushing the old bore well and Rs. 1,70,000/- for digging a new bore well, Rs. 6 Lakhs towards compensation, Rs. 55,000/- each for fixing grills and glass windows and Rs. 10,000/- as costs.

3.  The complainant is an Association formed by the owners of "Krishnaprabha apartments" comprising 74 apartments and "Krishnapriya Apartments" which consists of 25 apartments.  The opposite party is a Private Ltd Company.  The apartments in Krishna Prabha Apartments were handed over to the buyers in 2012 and Krishnapriya apartments in 2015.

4.  The District Commission, after admitting the Complaint issued notice to the opposite party to appear on 23.03.2020.  Upon receiving the notice the opposite party had contacted their advocate and requested to appear before the District Commission.  Since lock down was imposed due to the spread of covid-19 there was no sitting on 23.03.2020 and it was told that the opposite party will be informed.  Due to the lock down the office of the opposite party was also not functioning.  During the month of November 2021 when the opposite party contacted the District Commission information was gathered that on 08.03.2021 the District Commission had set the opposite party ex parte as there was no representation on his behalf.  Immediately the opposite party filed I.A. No. 374/2021 to set aside the order setting him ex-parte.  On 19.11.2021 the District Commission had dismissed the petition on the ground of delay in filing the petition and also for the reason that the District Commission had no power to allow the prayer.  The District Commission ought to have issued fresh notice to the opposite party as there was no sitting for almost a period of one year before passing an order setting the opposite party ex-parte.  The Commission ought to have found that the opposite party had filed version and no delay had occurred in filing the petition.

5.  Respondents entered appearance.  The records from the District Commission were called for and perused.  Heard.

6.  On perusal of the records received from the District Commission it could be seen that the revision petitioner had filed version before the District Commission on 19.11.2021 and the District Commission had rejected the version as belated.  The order passed by the District Commission is against the order of the Apex court in suo moto proceedings  (C ) No.3/2020 directing all Courts and Authorities that limitation prescribed by all statutes are  not applicable for the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 and thus the parties were eligible to avail 90 days  time up to 29.05 2022.

7.  Here the version was filed within the above period, so it cannot be said that the version was filed at a belated stage.  The proceedings of the District Commission would show that there was no sitting on 23.03.2020, 15.05.2020, 01.07,2020, 21.08.2020, 25.11.2020 and on 08.04.2021 on which date this case was called and set the revision petitioner ex-parte.  In such situation it was necessary to inform the parties by issuing fresh notice and no order setting the revision petitioner ex-parte ought to have been passed as he was entitled to avail the time granted by the Apex court on account of the spread of Covid-19.  It could be seen that the District Commission was hasty in setting the opposite party ex-parte and due to such an act substantial injustice was caused to the Revision Petitioner.  So the order requires interference.

In the result, the Revision Petition is allowed.  The order of the District Commission dated 08.03.2021 setting the revision petitioner ex-parte is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the District Commission to proceed in accordance with law.

         AJITH KUMAR D.: JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                                        RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER

jb