KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION No.62/2022

ORDER DATED: 13.12.2023

(Against the Order in I.A.No.222/2022 & I.A.No.239/2022 

in C.C.No.70/2021 of DCDRC, Palakkad)

PRESENT:

REVISION PETITIONER/OPPOSITE PARTY:

(by Adv. P. Balakrishnan)

Vs.

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

O R D E R

SRI. K.R.RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER

          This revision is filed by the opposite party in C.C.No.70/2021 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Palakkad (the District Commission for short).  The opposite party filed two I.As -  I.A.No.222/2022 for setting aside the exparte order and another I.A.239/2022 for accepting the version.  Both these I.As were dismissed by the District Commission on 27.07.2022.  Aggrieved by the exparte order and the orders in the IAs, the opposite party has filed this revision.

          2.       The complaint was filed by the respondent on 05.04.2021 for getting refund of the excess amount allegedly collected by the petitioner bank and also claiming a compensation of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand).  The complaint was filed on 05.04.2021 and the notice to the opposite party was issued on 17.04.2021.

          3.       Heard both sides. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner submitted that the Revision Petitioner/opposite party was set exparte on 19.04.2021 without even wating for the statutory period of thirty days for filing their version.  Hence, the opposite party filed the I.A.No.222/2022 for setting aside the exparte order and another I.A.No.239/2022 was filed for accepting their version.  According to the learned counsel they did not receive the notice in the complaint and they came to know about the exparte order dated 19.04.2021 only after getting a notice in IA 106/2022 filed by the complainant.  According to him the District Commission has not received the acknowledgement card in respect of the notice on the complaint sent to them.  The learned Counsel argued that in view of the order of the Apex Court in Suo Motu W.P.(C)No.03/2020 the limitation period is excluded during the period of Covid 19 pandemic which is available up to 29.05.2022.  Hence, the order of the District Commission making the Revision Petitioner/opposite party exparte during this period and also dismissing the I.As are in violation of the said order.  Hence, he prayed for setting aside the order setting them exparte and also the orders in the I.As.

          4.       The learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant submitted that the revision petitioner/opposite party was given notice on the complaint. They did not file their version within the statutory period and hence the District Commission has rightly declared them as exparte. There is no material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order. Hence the learned Counsel prayed for dismissing the revision petition.

          5.       We have considered the submissions on both sides and examined   the records.  We observe that the notice in the complaint was sent to the opposite party on 17.04.2021 and as per the letter from the Department of Posts it was delivered on 19.04.2021.  Hence, there is no reason to doubt about service of notice to the opposite party.  According to the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner they were set exparte on 19.04.2021, which is not correct.  As per the records, we notice that the exparte order was passed on 09.12.2021.

          6.       I.A.No.222/2022 and I.A.No.239/2022 filed by the revision petitioner/opposite party have arisen out of the order dated 09.12.2021 of the District commission setting them exparte. This order was passed by the District Commission during the Covid 19 pandemic period.  Hence the crucial issue to be considered in this case is whether the revision petitioner/opposite party deserves exclusion from the period of limitation allowed by the apex court due to Covid-19 pandemic.

7.       The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/opposite party argued that they were set exparte during the period of exclusion from limitation available as per the order of the Apex Court because of the spread of Covid-19 pandemic.  The said exclusion from limitation was available up to 29.05.2022. The exparte order was passed on 09.12.2021 and the I.A. for setting aside the said order was filed on 23.05.2022, i.e. before the said date.  As per the order dated 27.07.2022 the District Commission dismissed the I.A.s stating that they have no authority to set aside the order declaring them as exparte.  We concur with the view of the District Commission that they have no authority to set aside their exparte order.  However, the exparte order was passed on 09.12.2021 which is during the period of the limitation exclusion available as per the order of the Apex Court. The order of the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C)No.03/2020, which extended the time limits prescribed by the various enactments in our country up to 29.05.2022 was in the wake of the extraordinary situation created by the spread of the pandemic Covid-19.  We are of the view that since the said order as well as the order of the National Commission to the said effect were in force the revision petitioners ought not to have been set exparte on 09.12.2021. We observe that though the District Commission has no authority to set aside their own exparte order, the Revision Petitioner/opposite party has approached them with an I.A. to receive the version before the expiry of the Covid-19 exclusion period.

8.       For the foregoing reasons we find that the District Commission erred in setting the Revision Petitioner/opposite party exparte on 09.12.2021. We are of the view that the Revision Petitioner should be given the benefit of Covid-19 exclusion from limitation as the exparte order was passed during the said period.  Hence, we set aside the order of the District Commission declaring the Revision Petitioner/opposite party as exparte.  Consequently, orders in both the I.As have become infructuous.  The District Commission shall take on file the version of the revision petitioner/opposite party and shall proceed to consider and dispose of the complaint on merits, after affording an opportunity to the revision petitioner to contest the matter.  

          In the result, the revision is allowed.  No costs.

SL