KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION No. 35/2022

ORDER DATED: 14.02.2024

(Against the Order in I.A. No. 103/22 in C.C. 108/2010 of CDRC, Tvpm)

PRESENT:

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.                                                    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                        : MEMBER

REVISION PETITIONER:

Vanchinad Motors (P) Ltd., Bye Pass Road, Ambalathara, Thiruvananthapuram represented by its Managing Director Prem Kumar.

                         (By Adv. Sreegopal N.S.)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Late Reghunathan, Krishna Bhavan, T.C. No. 11/748, Mosque Lane, Kesavadasapuram, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. K. Sushama, W/o late Reghunathan, T.C. No. 11/748, Mosque Lane, Kesavadasapuram, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.

3. Parvathy, T.C. No. 11/748, Mosque Lane, Kesavadasapuram, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.

4. Arun R., T.C. No. 11/748, Mosque Lane, Kesavadasapuram, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.

                              (By Adv. B. Vasudevan Nair for R2 to R4)

5. M/s Force Motors Ltd., Mumbai-Pune Road, Akurdi, Pune.

(By Adv. G.S. Kalkura)

6. The Proprietor, Poomkudy Force, Edappally, Cochin.

                       (By Advs. George Cherian Karippaparambil & S. Reghukumar)

7. Karnataka Bank Ltd., Mahaveera Circle, Mangalore, Karnataka.

ORDER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN. K.R: MEMBER

This revision is filed by the 3^rd opposite party in C.C. No. 108/2010 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (District Commission for short).  As per the order dated 16.06.2010, the 3^rd opposite party/revision petitioner was set ex parte by the District Commission.  I.A. No. 103/2022 filed for setting aside the ex parte order was also dismissed by the District Commission.   Aggrieved by the said orders, the 3^rd opposite party has filed this revision petition. 

2. The complaint pertains to manufacturing defect of a Traveller purchased by the complainant.  We have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.  The learned counsel confirmed having received the notice from the District Commission.  According to him the case was entrusted to an Advocate who was handling the case of the 1^st opposite party.  Later, they came to know that the counsel to whom the case was entrusted did not file vakalath or version.  On knowing about the ex parte order, the 3^rd opposite party filed I.A. No. 103/2022 on 05.03.2022 to set aside the ex parte order dated 16.06.2010.  The said I.A. was dismissed by the District Commission on 07.05.2022 stating that it was filed after more than 10 years of the date of the ex parte order and that no convincing or sufficient reason was mentioned by the petitioner. 

3.  The learned counsel submitted that there was no deliberate delay on the part of the revision petitioner and he had a bonafide belief that the counsel to whom the case was entrusted would handle the case properly.  The revision petitioner should not be penalized for the professional lapse of his counsel.  Hence he prayed for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 16.06.2010 and the order dated 07.05.2022 in I.A. No. 103/2022. 

4.  We have carefully gone through the records.  The District Commission issued the notice in the complaint as early as on 16.04.2010 and the learned counsel admitted having received the notice.  The opposite party was set ex-parte on 16.06.2010 and as rightly pointed out by the District Commission the 3^rd opposite party/revision petitioner approached the District Commission for setting aside the ex-parte order after more than ten years.  It appears that they did not take any attempt to know about the status of the case during all these years.  The 3^rd opposite party /revision petitioner was set ex-parte by the District Commission on 16.06.2010 as they failed to appear before the District Commission and file their version within the statutory period.  The District Commission was right in setting him ex-parte as per Section 13(2) (b) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Hence we do not find any error in the orders of the District Commission dated 16.06.2010 and 07.05.2022.  Consequently we do not find any reason to interfere with the proceedings of the District Commission in the orders under challenge.

5.  Further, this is a case in which no version has been filed by the revision petitioner, though he had received notice from the District Commission.  Therefore, in view of 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, opposite party cannot file their written version now.  The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner argued that the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in the said case is not applicable in this case as it was filed prior to the said decision.

6. We notice that the complaint was filed prior to the  judgment of the Constitution Bench in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (2020)5 SCC 757.  Applicability  of the decision in the  cases prior to the said judgment is discussed by the Apex Court in  M/s Daddy Builders Pvt Ltd & Another Vs Manisha Bhargava {SLP (Civil) No 1240 of 2021dated 11.02.2021.   In this case the Apex Court have observed that Consumer Commissions have no jurisdiction to accept written statement filed beyond the statutory period even in cases prior to the decision dated 04.03.2020 in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (2020)5 SCC 757 and the exemption is available only in those old cases where the delay in filing the version was already condoned.

7.       From the above observations it is evident that the Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. shall be applicable to the complaints which were filed prior to the said judgment as well.  The prospective application of the decision in old cases is relevant only in those cases where the delay in filing the version was already condoned as per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M/s Mampee Timbers &Hardwares Pvt. Ltd. (Diary No. 2365 of 2017 decided on 10.02.2017).  Hence, in this case the revision petitioner/3^rd opposite party cannot be permitted to file his written version now.

8. We do not find any material irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference of this Commission under its revisional jurisdiction. There is no merit in the contentions put forward by the Revision Petitioner.

9.  For the foregoing reasons, the revision petition is dismissed.  No costs.

However, dismissal of this Revision Petition would not stand in the way of the Revision Petitioner to be heard at the time of final hearing of the complaint C.C. No. 108/2010.

     AJITH KUMAR D.: JUDICIAL MEMBER

        RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER

jb