KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION No. 66/2023

ORDER DATED: 20.09.2023

(Against the Order in I.A. No. 98/2023 in C.C. 209/2022 of CDRC, Kollam)

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. Mercedes Benz-Bridgeway Motors LLP, Kannur Road, West Hill P.O., Calicut-673 005.

2. Mercedes Benz-Bridgeway Motors, LLP, NH-17, Bypass Road, Marathakkara, Thrissur-680 306.

(By Adv. J.P. Sandhya)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Mohanachandran Nair, Harisree, NWRA-14, Kochuppilammoodu, Kollam.

2. SBI General Insurance Company Ltd., II Floor, Taarra Towers, Vellayambalam-Sasthamangalam Road, Sasthamangalam P.O., Thiruvananthapuram-695 010.

3. Mercedes Benz, Head Office, E-3, MIDC Chakam, Phase Chakan Industrial Area, Kuruli & Nighoje, Taluka : Khed Chakan, Maharashtra-410 501.

4. Sivesh S., SBI General Insurance Company Ltd., II Floor, Taarra Towers, Vellayambalam-Sasthamangalam Road, Sasthamangalam P.O., Thiruvananthapuram-695 010.

ORDER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN. K.R: MEMBER

This revision petition is filed by the 2^nd and 4^th opposite parties in C.C. No. 209/2022 before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kollam (District Commission for short). It is filed against the order dated 30.06.2023inI.A. No. 98/2023which was filed before the District Commission for setting aside its ex-parte order dated 04.11.2022 passed against them.  As per the order, the District Commission dismissed the I.A. Revision Petitioners are aggrieved by the order and have filed this revision against the said order.

2. The complaint was filed by the 1^st respondent/complainant alleging defect in a Mercedes Benz car purchased by him. He alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and claimed Insured’s Declared value (IDV) as per insurance policy or claim for total loss and compensation. Though 2^nd and 4^th parties entered appearance before the District Commission they failed to file their version within the statutory period and hence they were set ex-parte. The Interlocutory Application filed by them to set aside the ex-parte order was dismissed by the District commission.   This order is challenged by the Revision Petitioners.

3.  We have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners.  The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that though the Revision Petitioners appeared before the District Commission through their counsel, they could not file version within time.  Hence the revision petitioners were set ex-parte by the District Commission on 04.11.2022.  I.A. No. 98/2023 was filed for setting aside the said ex-parte order.  However, the District Commission dismissed the I.A stating that the District Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition at that stage.  The learned counsel argued that, no reasonable opportunity was afforded to the appellants to put forward their case before the District Commission.  It was submitted that the revision petitioners have cogent evidence to prove their case and therefore, it is necessary that an opportunity is provided to them to place and prove their case.  There is no deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of the revision petitioners.  The learned counsel for the revision petitioners prayed for setting aside the impugned order in I.A. 98/2023 and allow them to file version and defend their case before the District Commission.

4.  We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and perused the records. The primary issue in this case is that even after getting notices by the opposite parties/revision petitioners they did not file their written version as per the relevant provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The revision petitioners admitted having received the notice and entered appearance before the District Commission. In the first paragraph of the order dated 30.06.2023, the District Commission has stated as under:

“From the proceedings before the Commission it could be seen that the opposite parties 2 & 4 accepted notice issued from this Commission on 22.07.2022 and they entered appearance before this Commission on 03.08.2022.  But the version was not filed till 04.11.2022 and hence they were set ex-parte.  Now the opposite parties 2 & 4 are before this Commission with this I.A to review the order setting them ex-parte.”

From the above it is evident that the revision petitioners/2^nd & 4^th opposite parties have not filed version within the statutory period. 

5. Absolutely, no evidence has been produced by the revision petitioner to show that the proceedings of the District Commission are erroneous in any manner.  The order of the District commission is as per section 38(3) (b)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which is reproduced below:

“38 (3) The District commission shall, if the complaint admitted by it under sub-section (2) of section 36 relates to goods in respect of which the procedure specified in sub-section (2) cannot be followed, or if the complaint relates to any services,-

(a) refer a copy of such complaint to the opposite party directing him to give his version of the case within a period of thirty days or such extended period not exceeding fifteen days as may be granted by the District commission;

(b): if the opposite party, on receipt of a copy of the complaint, referred to him under clause (a) denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint, or omits or fails to take any action to represent his case within the time given by the District commission, it shall proceed to settle the consumer dispute –

1. on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant and the opposite party, if the opposite party denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint, or
2. ex-parte on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant, where the opposite party omits or fails to take any action to represent his case within the time given by the Commission.”

In view of the above specific provision, we do not find any error in the order of the District Commission. The order dated 04.11.2022 of the District Commission is as per the provisions of the Act and consequently we do not find any reason to interfere with the proceedings of the District Commission in the order in the IA under challenge.

6. Further, this is a case in which no version has been filed by the revision petitioners, though revision petitioners had received notice from the District Commission.  Therefore, in view of the dictum laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (2020)5 SCC 757, it is not possible for them to file a written version now.  For the above reason, there is no point in admitting this revision or calling for the Lower Court Records.

7. We do not find any material irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference of this Commission under its revisional jurisdiction. There is no merit in the contentions put forward by the Revision Petitioner.

8. For the foregoing reasons, we find no grounds to admit this Revision Petition or to grant any of the reliefs sought for.

          This revision fails and is accordingly dismissed.  No costs.

JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN  : PRESIDENT

                                  AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                                                                   BEENA KUMARY. A         : MEMBER

                                                                                                  RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER

jb