KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION No. 21/2023

ORDER DATED: 13.03.2023

(Against the Order in C.C. 240/2022 of CDRC, Malappuram)

PRESENT:

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

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.                                                    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI.RANJIT. R                                                                   : MEMBER

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A                                              : MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                        : MEMBER

REVISION PETITIONER:

M/s Kothari Investments, No. 33, General Muthia Street, First Floor, Office No. 5, Sowcarpet, Chennai-600 079.

(By Advs. Smitha Mathew & V.K. Prasanth)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. M. Ashraf, S/o Mammutty, Muthedath House, Edayoor P.O., Valancheri, Malapppuram-676 554.

2. Regional Transport Officer, Regional Transport Office, Malappuram.

ORDER

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

The 1^st opposite party in C.C. No. 240/2022 is in revision aggrieved by an order dated 05.01.2023 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Malappuram (District Commission for short).  As per the order under revision, the version filed by the revision petitioner has not been accepted for the reason that, it was not filed within the statutory time limit.  The revision petitioner has produced a certified copy of the court proceedings before us.  It shows that from 20.07.2022 the revision petitioner was absent.  Notice was admittedly received by the revision petitioner.  It is also admitted that no written version was filed by the revision petitioner within the statutory time limit.  In such circumstances, the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (2020)5 SCC 757 squarely applies.  According to the Constitution Bench, the proper procedure to be followed in such circumstances is to proceed ex-parte to decide the complaint and to dispose it of on the basis of the evidence produced by the complainant.  In view of the binding dictum of the Apex Court on this point we do not find any error of jurisdiction or other grounds to interfere with the order of the District Commission as sought for in this revision petition.  This revision petition is therefore dismissed. 

                           Sd/-

JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN  : PRESIDENT

                          Sd/-

AJITH KUMAR  D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

                            Sd/-

                                                                              RANJIT. R                      : MEMBER

                         Sd/-

                                                                        BEENA KUMARY. A         : MEMBER

                          Sd/-

                                                                        RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER

jb