KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION No.24/2021

ORDER DATED: 23.03.2022

(Against the Order in C.C.No.277/2020 of CDRC, Thiruvananthapuram)

PRESENT:

REVISION PETITIONERS/COMPLAINANTS:

Vs.

RESPONDENT/OPPOSITE PARTY:

(by Adv. Abdul Kharim)

O R D E R

HON’BLE JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN: PRESIDENT

The complainant in C.C.No.277/2020 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (hereinafter referred to as the District Commission for short), is under revision aggrieved by the orders dated 04.08.2021 allowing I.A.Nos.120/2021 and 122/2021.  As per the orders under revision, the District Commission has reviewed its order declaring the respondent exparte and has reopened the evidence in the case, permitting the respondent to file version and to adduce evidence.  According to the Revision Petitioner the action of District Commission is a blatant violation of the directions contained in the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court.  Therefore, he seeks interference with the orders in exercise of the power of Revision of this Commission.

          2.       The Revision Petitioner/Complainant had filed the complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.  The complaint was admitted on 11.12.2020 and notice was ordered to the respondents.  The case was thereafter posted for appearance of the respondent to 15.01.2021.  Since there was no sitting on the said date, the case was adjourned.  The case was posted for appearance of the opposite parties to 02.03.2021 but, they were absent.  There was also no representation for them.  Therefore they were set exparte, the complainant was examined, exhibits A1 to A11 documents were marked and the case was posted to 31.03.2021 for orders.

          3.       In the above circumstances, the opposite party filed I.A.No.151/2021 for advancing the case, I.A.No.120/21 to review the order declaring the opposite party exparte and I.A.No.122/21 for reopening the evidence in the case.  Accordingly, the case was advanced.  Both the petitions, to reopen the evidence and to review the exparte order dated 02.03.2021 were opposed by the Revision Petitioner who filed objections.  The matter was heard and by two separate orders the District Commission allowed both the petitions.  It is aggrieved by the said orders that the Revision Petitioner is before us. 

          4.       According to the Revision Petitioner who appears in person, the opposite party had to file version within the statutory time limit stipulated in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short).  Placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (2020)5 SCC 757 it is contended that the District Commission had no jurisdiction to accept the written version filed after the expiry of the statutory time limit.  Therefore, it is contended that the order reopening the evidence in the case, is also wrong in law and liable to be set aside.

          5.       The contentions of the Revision Petitioner are opposed by Advocate R. Narayan who appears for the respondent.  It is pointed out that, the Supreme Court had as per order in suo motu Writ Petition(C)No.03/2020 titled
RE: COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION ordered that in view of the spread of the Covid pandemic, 2019 the limitation for filing appeals, suits or other proceedings by any law shall stand extended until further orders.  Pursuant to the said order the National Commission had issued an office order No.74/2021 dated 30.07.2021 ordering that, the time limit stipulated by the various enactments for all applications, appeals, complaints etc. shall stand extended.  The said order was in force throughout the period during which the events in the present case had taken place.  It was in view of the said orders that the District Commission has permitted the opposite party to file the written version.  Therefore, it is contended that there is no illegality in the orders of the District Commission as alleged by the Revision Petitioner.

          6.       We have heard the Revision Petitioner as well as the counsel for the respondent.  We have also considered the contentions advanced before us anxiously.  As rightly contended by the counsel for the respondent the entire sequence of events has taken place during the unprecedented spread of the pandemic, Covid-19 throughout our country.  Commercial establishments had stopped functioning and people were confined to their residences for an indefinitely long period of time.  There was no indication as to when the situation would improve, permitting life to return to normalcy.  It was taking into account the peculiar circumstances so created that the Supreme Court had ordered the period of limitation for filing applications, suits, appeals, petitions etc. to be extended until the situation improved.  The order now stands extended upto 28.02.2022.  It was taking into account the above legal position, that the District Commission has reviewed its order declaring the respondent exparte and reopened the evidence in the case so as to permit the respondent to cross examine the Revision Petitioner.  We find that the order passed is in accordance with the directions of the Apex Court that was in force at the relevant point of time. 

          7.       For the above reasons, we find no infirmity, error of jurisdiction or illegality in the orders that are under challenge in this Revision Petition.  The said orders are confirmed.  This Revision Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.  No order as to costs.

SL