KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 538/2022

JUDGMENT DATED: 01.12.2022

(Against the Order in C.C. 289/2021 of CDRC, Malappuram)

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

APPELLANTS:

1. DTDC Chelari, Kakkanchery Office, Chelambra P.O., Malappuram-673 634.

2. DTDC Courier Service, DTDC-House, No. 3, Victoria Road, Bangalore-560 047.

             (By Advs. Padmini N. & Manju Prasad)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Prasanna T.K., Madhuvani Spinning Mill, Chelambra P.O., Malappuram District-673 634.

2. Adhithyan R. Kurungatt, Madhuvani Spinning Mill, Chelambra P.O., Malappuram District-673 634.

JUDGMENT

SRI.RANJIT. R: MEMBER

The opposite parties in C.C. No. 289/2021 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Malappuram in short the District Commission are in appeal challenging the final order dated 07.06.2022 allowing the complaint filed by the respondents herein.  The complaint was filed by the respondents claiming that the appellants/opposite parties Courier service centre were reluctant to deliver the parcel sent from other places to the complainants’ house.  The 1^st complainant is a cancer patient.  The 2^nd complainant sent some medicines to the 1^st complainant with a tag ‘Medicine urgent’ in the priority list.  But the opposite parties did not deliver the item to the complainant.  Parcels including medicines sent by other persons to the complainant through the opposite parties got damaged due to the late delivery of the items.  The respondent hence filed the complaint seeking compensation and costs. 

2.  Though the appellants had received notice they did not appear or file version.  Therefore the District Commission proceeded to consider the complaint ex-parte.  Accordingly as per the order appealed against, the complaint has been allowed directing the opposite parties to deliver the parcel and other items in the name of the complainants at the complainant’s house in due time.  Opposite parties were also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainants and costs of Rs. 5,000/-.  According to the learned counsel for the appellants the 1^st appellant/1^st opposite party did not receive any notice of the complaint.  The notice of the complaint was served in the office of the 2^nd opposite party and the officials of the 2^nd opposite party then forwarded the said notice to the head office for legal opinion.  But due to administrative delay in getting opinion, the 2^nd opposite party could not entrust the notice and connected documents with their lawyer in time.  By that time the District Commission had made both the opposite parties ex-parte and passed an ex-parte order against them on 07.06.2022.  There was no wilful negligence or laches on the part of the opposite parties in not appearing the case within time.  But the District Commission on a wrong notion made the appellants ex-parte and passed the impugned order under challenge.  Therefore the counsel submits that a lenient view should be adopted in this case and a fresh chance is necessary to be given to the appellants to place and prove their case before the District Commission.

3.  Having heard the counsel at length, we are not satisfied that any interference with the order appealed against is warranted in view of the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (2020)5 SCC 757.  According to the said decision the time limit available for an opposite party to file his version is thirty days from the receipt of notice, which the District Commission is empowered to extend for a maximum period of fifteen days.  In the absence of filing of version by an opposite party, the Constitution Bench has held that the proper course to be adopted is to proceed to dispose of the complaint ex-parte.  Here in the present case as per the impugned order both the appellants did not appear and file version even though notice was served on them.  Thus the complaint has been finally disposed of ex-parte since no version has been filed by the appellants within the statutory period.  We find no infirmity in the said procedure. 

          For the foregoing reasons we find no grounds to admit this appeal.  This appeal is accordingly dismissed. 

          Refund the statutory deposit to the appellants, on proper application.

JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN  : PRESIDENT

T.S.P. MOOSATH  : JUDICIAL MEMBER

RANJIT. R                : MEMBER

                                                            BEENA KUMARY. A         : MEMBER

                                                            RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER

jb