KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 325/2023

JUDGMENT DATED: 19.06.2023

(Against the Order in C.C. 482/2022 of CDRC, Malappuram)

PRESENT:

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

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.                                                    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                        : MEMBER

APPELLANT:

Manager, Indus Ind Bank Ltd., Peekays Arcade, Opp: Private Bus Stand, Down Hill (PO), Malappuram-676 519 represented by the Legal Executive and Manager & Power of Attorney Holder, Mathew M. Puthor.

                (By Adv. Manju Prasad)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Moideenkutty P., Palliyali Baithul Rasha, Muttichira, Mooniyoor P.O., Tirurangadi Taluk, Malappuram-676 311.

JUDGMENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

This is an appeal filed by the opposite party in C.C. No. 482 of 2022 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Malappuram (referred as District Commission).  The District Commission as per the order dated 31.03.2023 allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to refund Rs. 7,086/-, to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and costs of Rs. 3,000/- on reaching a finding that the opposite party had adopted unfair trade practice and deficiency of service.

2.  The case of the complainant is that he is the registered owner of vehicle No. KL 65L 4949 and had availed a loan from the opposite party for Rs. 2 lakhs by pledging the said vehicle.  On 24.02.2021 the loan was closed as a part of settlement by remitting a total sum of Rs. 1,28,437/- but later the opposite party had realized a further amount of Rs. 7,086/-. When the complainant had approached the opposite party he was told that it was a technical mistake and assured that the above amount will be credited to the account of the complainant. But the opposite party never credited the amount and hence the complainant would allege unfair trade practice and deficiency of service against the opposite party and therefore he would seek for compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and refund of the amount collected.

3.  The opposite party had filed the version beyond the statutory period. Final order was passed by setting the opposite party ex-parte.

4.  The appellant would challenge the finding of the District Commission on the reason that opportunity was not afforded to the appellant to substantiate his contentions.  The District Commission ought not to have rejected the version filed by the appellant. The case was firstly posted to 13.01.2023 and thereafter adjourned to 16.02.2023 and the opposite party was ready with the version but the District Commission had refused to accept the same.  The District Commission could have waived the time up to 15 days in filing the version.  The District Commission had failed to understand the case of the complainant and passed the impugned order. The statement of account marked as Exhibit A2 was more than enough to reach a conclusion that the case of the complainant was fabricated.  Hence the order is sought to be set aside.

5.  Heard the Counsel for the appellant.  Perused the Appeal memorandum and the order of the District Commission.

6. The learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that the District Commission ought to have accepted the version as the same was filed within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the notice. According to the Counsel for the appellant the District Commission ought not to have set the appellant ex-parte.

7.  The correctness of the stand taken by the appellant in respect of the alleged mistake on the part of the District Commission in setting the appellant ex-parte has to be ascertained.  Section 38(3) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 deals with the provisions related to filing of the version.  The opposite party has to file the version within 30 days from the date of service of the copy of the complaint.  The order passed by the District Commission would show that the version was filed beyond the statutory period.  We do not find any reason to suspect the finding of the District Commission that the version was filed beyond the statutory period.  In the appeal memorandum the appellant has omitted to state the date of receipt of the copy of the complaint to substantiate his case that the version was filed within the statutory period.  The appellant ought to have filed the version within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the complainant and if the appellant wanted further time permission ought to have been obtained from the District Commission for further extension of 15 days.  Such a course is not seen adopted by the appellant.  In the authoritative judicial pronouncement of the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (2020)5 SCC 757  it is declared that the Consumer Commission has no authority to receive the version if it is filed after elapsing the statutory period.  The averments contained in the appeal memorandum would show that the case was posted to 13.01.2023 which means the copy of the complaint and the notice ought to have been received by the appellant prior to 13.01.2023.   But no version was filed till 16.02.2023 and there is no case that permission was sought for to further extend the time.  Since the appellant did not specify the date of receipt of the notice it can be presumed that the version was filed after the statutory period.  Therefore the District Commission had rightly set the appellant ex-parte.  The appellant has no right to contest the matter on account of his failure in filing the version within the time stipulated.  So no useful purpose will be served in admitting the appeal.  Therefore we are not inclined to admit the appeal and call for the records from the District Commission.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.

The appellant is entitled to get refund of Rs. 17,800/- being the statutory deposit made by the appellant as we did not admit the appeal.    

JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN  : PRESIDENT

                                  AJITH KUMAR  D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                                                                  RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER

jb