KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION No. 40/2023

ORDER DATED: 05.06.2023

(Against the Order in C.C. 245/2022 of CDRC, Palakkad)

PRESENT:

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

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.                                                    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A                                              : MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                        : MEMBER

REVISION PETITIONERS:

1. The Manager, Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd., Centennial Square, 1^st Floor, 6 A, Dr. Ambedkar Salai, Kodambakkam, Chennai, Tamil Nadu-600 024 represented by its Senior Manager-Legal, Rakesh Dwany Kokkattu.

2. Shaju Paul, Manager, Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd., Ground Floor, Jain Tower-2, Near Edappally Railway O.B., Nethaji Nagar, NH-17, Edappally, Kochi-682 024.

(By Advs. C. Anoop Chandra & Jayachandran)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Manikandan K.C., Thottingal, Kunnathazheth, Shornur P.O., Ottapalam Taluk, Palakkad – 679 121.

2. The Manager, Shrivenkatesha Heavy Equipments, Sivam Building No. 111/74-A, Sea Port Airport Road, Irumpanam P.O., Kochi, Ernakulam-682 309.

ORDER

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

The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties in C.C. No. 245/2022 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Palakkad (District Commission for short) are in revision before us.  The revision petitioners are aggrieved by an order dated 20.03.2023 in RA 8/2023 passed by the District Commission.  As per the order under revision, the Review Application filed by the revision petitioners has been dismissed.

2.  According to the revision petitioners, notice in the complaint had been received by them on 16.12.2022.  The case was posted to 03.01.2023.  On the said date the revision petitioners appeared through their lawyer and sought for time to file version.  Time was granted and the case was posted to 06.02.2023 with a direction to file version before 30.01.2023.  On 27.01.2023 the revision petitioners filed their version.  However, without assigning any reason, the version was rejected on 06.02.2023.  Therefore, they seek interference with the order under revision. 

3.  Heard the counsel for the revision petitioners.  A perusal of the order under revision shows that notices had been served on the revision petitioners on 15.12.2022 and 14.12.2022 respectively.  Therefore, their versions ought to have been filed within 30 days from the said dates.  The District Commission has found that even if allowance is given for the discretionary extension of 15 days the versions ought to have been filed before 29.01.2023 and 28.01.2023.  Since the version was not filed within the said time limit, the review application has been dismissed.  There is nothing on record to show that the revision petitioners have filed their versions before the expiry of the statutory time limit.  Therefore, we do not find any grounds to take a different view of the matter.  We do not find any error of jurisdiction in the order of the District Commission warranting an interference therewith in revision. 

This revision fails and is accordingly dismissed. 

JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN  : PRESIDENT

                                  AJITH KUMAR  D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                                                             BEENA KUMARY. A         : MEMBER

                                                                                                 RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER

jb