KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION No. 04/2023

ORDER DATED: 16.01.2023

(Against the Order in C.C. 101/2022 of CDRC, Palakkad)

PRESENT:

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

SRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH                                                       : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI.RANJIT. R                                                                   : MEMBER

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A                                              : MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                        : MEMBER

REVISION PETITIONERS:

1. Senior Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2^nd Floor, Parappurath Towers, Main Road, Ottappalam-679 101. 

2. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd., Regional Office, Grievance Cell, Holiday City Centre, Calicut.

(By Adv. Sreevaraham G. Satheesh)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENT:

M.P. Ravindranathan, Krishna Vilas, Kamalalaya Road, Ottappalam P.O., Palakkad-679 101.

ORDER

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

The opposite party in C.C. No. 101/2022 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Palakkad (District Commission for short) is the revision petitioner.  The revision petitioner was served with notice in the case on 20.06.2022.  But, the version in the case was filed only on 17.08.2022.  The version has not been accepted for the reason that the time limit stipulated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 had expired.  According to the learned counsel, the case had been posted to 19.08.2022 for filing version and the version had been filed within the time stipulated by the District Commission.  In spite of the above, the version was not accepted.  Therefore the counsel seeks interference with the order under revision. 

Heard.  In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (2020)5 SCC 757, the opposite party has no right to file version after the expiry of the time limit of 30 days stipulated by the statutory provision and the extension of time, if any, granted by the District Commission.  In this case, admittedly, no extension of time by 15 days was granted. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Commission declining to accept the version.  This revision is therefore dismissed.  No costs. 

                                                                    Sd/-

JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN  : PRESIDENT

                                                            Sd/-

                                T.S.P. MOOSATH  : JUDICIAL MEMBER

                     Sd/-

            RANJIT. R                : MEMBER

                                                         Sd/-

                                                                                        BEENA KUMARY. A         : MEMBER

                                                        Sd/-

                                                                                     RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER

jb