KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REVISION PETITION No.80/2022
ORDER DATED: 27.02.2023
(Against the Order in C.C.No.139/2022 of DCDRC, Palakkad)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN | : | PRESIDENT |
SRI. RANJIT R. | : | MEMBER |
SMT. BEENA KUMARY A. | : | MEMBER |
SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN | : | MEMBER |
REVISION PETITIONERS/OPPOSITE PARTIES:
1. | ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd., ICICI Lombard House 414, Veer Savarkar Marg, Near Siddi Vinayak Temple, Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 025 |
2. | ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd., 1st Floor, Desaradhe Tower, Kalmandapam Junction, Palakkad – 678 001 |
(by Advs. Nair Ajaykrishnan & Narayan R.)
Vs.
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
| Leena Sreenivasan, W/o Sreenivasan, Kottarapattu Veedu, Palapuram, Ottapalam Taluk, Palakkad – 679 103 |
O R D E R
HON’BLE JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN: PRESIDENT
This revision is directed against an order dated 20.10.2022 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Palakkad (the District Commission for short) in C.C.No.139/2022. The opposite parties in the complaint are the Revision Petitioners. The complainant is the respondent.
2. As per the order under revision, the version filed by the Revision Petitioners has been rejected and the case has been posted for pre-trial steps. The version filed by the Revision Petitioners has been rejected for the reason that the same was not filed within the statutory time limit.
3. According to the counsel for the Revision Petitioners, they had received notice in the case from the District Commission on 16.08.2022. The first date of posting was on 12.09.2022. On the said date there was no sitting and the case was adjourned by notification to 20.10.2022. On the said date the Revision Petitioners appeared and filed version. However, the District Commission has rejected the version as having been filed beyond the time limit stipulated for filing version.
3. Heard. Admittedly, the Revision Petitioners received notice from the District Commission on 16.08.2022. Therefore, their written version ought to have been filed on or before 16.09.2022. However, the version appears to have been filed only on 20.10.2022. It is therefore clear that, no version was filed within the statutory time limit of thirty days. In this case, no extension of time was granted by the District Commission and therefore, they had only thirty days to file their version.
4. In view of the binding 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, no extension of the statutory time limit could be granted by the District Commission or this Commission for filing version. Therefore, the District Commission was fully justified in rejecting the version of the Revision Petitioners.
5. There is no error of jurisdiction in the order of the District Commission warranting an interference in revision. This revision is therefore dismissed. No costs.
JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN | : | PRESIDENT |
RANJIT R. | : | MEMBER |
BEENA KUMARY A. | : | MEMBER |
K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN | : | MEMBER |
SL
