KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 367/2023

JUDGMENT DATED: 19.06.2023

(Against the Order in C.C. 226/2022 of CDRC, Wayanad)

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:

1. Wayanad Primary Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank, Panamaram, Panamaram P.O., represented by its Secretary.

2. Wayanad Primary Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank, Panamaram, Panamaram P.O., represented by its Special Sales Officer.

(By Adv. Pallichal S.K. Pramod)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Krishnan Nair T., S/o Raman Nair, Ayyappan Moola Kizhakke Veedu, Anjukunnu P.O., Panamaram, Wayanad.

JUDGMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT

The opposite parties in C.C. No. 226/2022 are in appeal challenging the final order dated 13.03.2023 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Wayanad (District Commission for short).  As per the order appealed against, the complaint has been allowed after setting the appellants ex-parte and they were ordered to close the loan account of the respondent/complainant accepting the total amount outstanding in the loan accounts at the end of the year 2018 and to return the title documents to the complainant and his son.  An amount of Rs. 10,000/- has been ordered as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- has been ordered as costs. 

2.  The appellants were set ex-parte for the reason that, they had not appeared and filed their written version though notice was served on them.  They were therefore set ex-parte and the complaint was decided on the basis of the evidence adduced by the complainant.  The explanation in this appeal is that, the notice from the District Commission had been misplaced by the staff of the appellant.  However, since notice had been received by them, their written version ought to have been filed within the statutorily mandated time limit.  Since no version was filed within time, no further opportunity is available or could be granted to them for the said purpose.  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 is to the said effect.  In view of the above position of law, no purpose will be served by admitting this appeal or issuing notice to the respondent.  Therefore, we find no grounds to admit this appeal.  This appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. 

The amount of statutory deposit made by the appellants shall be refunded to them, on proper acknowledgment. 

JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN  : PRESIDENT

                              AJITH KUMAR  D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                                                           BEENA KUMARY. A         : MEMBER

                                                                                          RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER

jb