KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No.252/2022

JUDGEMENT DATED: 30.05.2022

(Against the Order in C.C.No.02/2019 of CDRC, Thiruvananthapuram)

PRESENT:

APPELLANT:

(by Advs. Nair Ajaykrishnan & Narayan R.)

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

JUDGEMENT

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

          The opposite party in C.C.No.02/2019 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (hereinafter referred to as the District Commission for short) has filed this appeal challenging the final order dated 15.12.2021 passed by the District Commission allowing the complaint.  The appellant had not filed version in the case and was declared exparte.

          2.       According to Advocate Narayan who appears for the appellant, this is a case in which the complaint ought not to have been allowed, for the reason that, there was no sufficient evidence available to prove the allegations made in the complaint.  It is also contended that, if the opposite party is given an opportunity, they would be able to produce evidence disproving the contentions of the complainant.  The counsel also points out that, even in a case where no version is filed by an opposite party, an opportunity to contest the matter is necessary to be afforded, for the reason that, the opposite party could make an endeavour to disprove the case pleaded by the complainant.  The only disadvantage an opposite party would suffer, when he does not file a version, is that he would not be able to put forward his case with respect to the controversy.  However, he would be perfectly at liberty to dispute the contentions of the complainant and to disprove them.  It is contended that such an opportunity is necessary to be granted in this case.  According to the learned counsel, such an opportunity is required to be extended to every opposite party, to meet the ends of justice.  It is also contended that since the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code have been made applicable in various matters, to proceedings before the Consumer Disputes Rederessal Commissions also, such a course is necessary to be adopted.  According to the learned counsel, such a course would be able to mitigate the rigor of the Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (2020)5 SCC 757 and M/S Daddys Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Manisha Bhargava and others. (2021) 3 SCC 669.

          3.       Section 38(3)(b)(ii) provides that, the District Commission shall proceed to settle a consumer dispute “exparte” on the basis of the 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.  The provision provides that, the opposite party shall submit 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.  Interpreting the above provision, the Constitution Bench has in the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (2020)5 SCC 757 held that the District Commissions do not have the power to extend the time limit for filing version to an opposite party beyond the outer limit of fifteen days which alone is the period that could be extended on the expiry of the thirty days period statutorily stipulated for filing version.  In the absence of version, the course to be adopted for deciding the complaint has also been specifically provided in the provision, viz, to settle the consumer dispute exparte on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant.  Since a distinct and separate procedure has been stipulated by the Parliament in the enactment, neither the District Commission nor this Commission has the power to ignore the procedure and to adopt a totally different procedure, in a case where no version is filed by an opposite party.  Neither the District Commission nor this Commission has the power to extend the time limit for filing version beyond the period of fifteen days which alone could be extended after the expiry of the thirty days period stipulated for filing version.  Therefore, the District Commission as well as this Commission has no other option in such circumstances but to adopt the procedure that is stipulated by Section 38(3)(b)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act referred to above.  In the above state of the law, we are unable to accept the contentions of the counsel for the appellant. 

          In this case admittedly no version was filed by the appellant and therefore, the District Commission has proceeded to finally dispose of the complaint exparte.  The said procedure being in accordance with the stipulations contained in the enactment, we find no infirmity in the order that requires correction in appeal.

          For the above reasons, this appeal is dismissed.

SL