KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 234/2022
JUDGMENT DATED: 13.06.2022
(Against the Order in C.C. 247/2020 of CDRC, Alappuzha)
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
APPELLANT:
Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd., Corporate Accident & Health Department, Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No. 2/3/19, Rajiv Gandi Salai (OMR), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097.
(By Adv. M. Nizamudeen)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS:
- Mathew Pramod, S/o Samuel K.O., Ottathengil House, Kuttemperoor P.O., Mannar Village, Chengannur Taluk, Alappuzha represented by his Power of Attorney Holder Pradeep Cherian.
- The Branch Manager, Sundaram BNP, Paridas Home Finance Ltd., II Floor, Centre Point, Near Post Office, K.P. Road, Kayamkulam-690 502.
JUDGMENT
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
This is an appeal filed by the 1st opposite party in C.C. No. 247/2020 challenging the final order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Alappuzha (District Commission for short) allowing the complaint as prayed for. As per the order dated 18.11.2021 the complainant has been held entitled to get an amount of Rs. 8,22,275/-. Apart from the above, an amount of Rs. 10,000/- has been awarded as compensation and a further amount of Rs. 2,000/- as costs.
2. According to the counsel for the appellant, though the appellant had received notice in the complaint from the District Commission, they had neither appeared nor filed their version. Therefore, the case was decided ex-parte, placing reliance on the contentions put forward by the complainant. According to the learned counsel, they have a very strong case to be put forward in this case. Therefore the counsel seeks the grant of another opportunity for filing their version and adducing proof in support of their case.
3. Having heard the counsel and given our anxious consideration to the contentions put forward, we are afraid that we are not in a position to grant the reliefs that are sought for in this appeal. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has in the decision New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (2020)5 SCC 757 held that the District Commission has no power to extend the time for filing version to any opposite party in a complaint beyond the 15 days that has been stipulated as the maximum extendable limit, once the period of 30 days stipulated for filing version expires. It has also been held that in cases where no version is filed the procedure to be adopted by the District Commission is to dispose of the complaint, ex-parte. We find that it is the said course that has been adopted by the District Commission in this case. In view of the above, we find no infirmity in the order appealed against.
4. The counsel pleads that, it is necessary for this appeal to be admitted, for the reason that the Supreme Court may take a different view of the entire issue in some other case. It is trite that every case has to be decided in accordance with law that is applicable at the time when the decision is taken. The law applicable at this point of time is what has been held by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case referred to above by us. Therefore we do not find any ground to admit this appeal. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.
JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
T.S.P. MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER
RANJIT. R : MEMBER
BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
jb RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
