KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REVISION PETITION No.21/2024
ORDER DATED: 18.04.2024
(Against the Order in R.A.19/2023 in C.C.No.281/2023 of DCDRC, Palakkad)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN | : | PRESIDENT |
SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN | : | MEMBER |
REVISION PETITIONER/OPPOSITE PARTY:
| Vineeth Mepatt, Proprietor, M/s S.V. Traders, Municipality Building, Town Bus Stand, T.B. Road, Palakkad – 678 014 |
(by Adv. Geetha Nair S.)
Vs.
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
| M.S. Krishnamoorthi, S/o Late Sabhapathi, Vadakkumpuram House, Erimayur, Palakkad – 678 546 |
O R D E R
HON’BLE JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN: PRESIDENT
The Revision Petitioner is the opposite party in C.C.No.281/2023 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Palakkad (the District Commission for short). As per the order under revision, a review application, R.A.19/2023 filed by the Revision Petitioner has been dismissed.
2. According to the Revision Petitioner, the complaint had been posted for the appearance of the Revision Petitioner on 20.11.2023. On the said date, he had appeared before the District Commission but the case was adjourned to 12.12.2023 for filing version. But on the said day, while he was on his way to the office of his counsel to file his version, he met with an accident and was hospitalised. Therefore, he was unable to file his version on time. For the above reason, he was set exparte by the District Commission. Immediately after getting discharge from the hospital, he filed his version on 25.09.2023 with an application to set aside the order declaring him exparte. However, the said petition was dismissed by the District Commission. It was to review the said order that he has filed R.A.19/2023. The said application has also been dismissed by the District Commission holding that it had no power to review the order. This revision is directed against the said order.
3. We have heard the counsel for the Revision Petitioner. It is not in dispute that the Revision Petitioner had not filed his version within the statutory time limit of thirty days. It was for the said reason that he had been set exparte by the District Commission. As per the decision of the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (2020)5 SCC 757 neither the District Commission nor the State Commission has the power to extend the time limit for filing version. In view of the above authoritative pronouncement of the law, we find no infirmity in the order of the District Commission that is sought to be revised. The only remedy that is available to the Revision Petitioner is to be heard at the time of final hearing of the complaint, as laid down in ARN Infrastructure India Limited vs. Hara Prasad Ghosh 2023 Live Law SC 763.
4. Therefore, while dismissing this Revision Petition confirming the order of the District Commission, we make it clear that the dismissal of this revision shall be without prejudice to the rights of the Revision Petitioner to be heard at the time of final disposal of C.C.No.281/2023.
In the result, this Revision fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN | : | PRESIDENT |
K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN | : | MEMBER |
SL
