KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 584/2022
JUDGMENT DATED: 05.11.2024
(Against the Order in C.C. 85/2020 of DCDRC, Thiruvananthapuram)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
APPELLANT:
Uthamadas, S/o Thankaraj, Prasad Bhavan, 12, Cheruvarakonam, Parassala, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. V.S. Balasubramaniam)
-
RESPONDENTS:
- M/s Carmel Traders represented by its Proprietor, Cheruvarakonam P.O., Parassala, Thiruvananthapuram-695 502.
- Sureshraj, Proprietor of M/s Carmel Traders, Cheruvarakonam P.O., Parassala, Thiruvananthapuram-695 502.
- KAG India Pvt. Ltd. represented by its Managing Director, Nagercoil Bypass Road, Near IRT Polytechnic, Opp: Christuraja Teacher Training Institute No. 2, Brindavan Street, SV Nagar, Chennai-63, having Administrative Office at Old No. 112-A, New No. 3-BPeriyarPadhai West, Near Ambika Empire Hotel, Choolaimedu, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, Pin – 600 094.
JUDGMENT
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
The appellant is the complainant in C.C. No. 85/2020 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (for short “the District Commission”). The respondents 1 to 3 are respectively opposite parties 1 to 3 in the complaint.
2. A complaint was filed by the complainant against the opposite parties alleging deficiency in service. The respondents 1 and 2 did not appear before the District Commission, despite service of notice on them. Therefore, they were set exparte by the District Commission on 11.11.2021. The notice issued to the 3rd respondent was returned unserved. Thereafter, the case stood posted for taking steps against the 3rd respondent. However, when the case was taken up on 05.05.2022, the appellant was absent and there was no representation for the appellant. In the above circumstances, the complaint was dismissed for default, recording that the appellant was continuously absent, against which this appeal has been filed.
3. Heard both sides.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant could not appear before the District Commission during the posting dates due to Covid-19 pandemic and hence the appellant has prayed for granting one more opportunity to contest the matter on merits. It appears that the Hon’ble Apex Court, in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation v., reported in 2022 (1) KHC 240 : 2022 (3) 117, granted exclusion for the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 on account of the difficulties due to the wide spread of Covid-19 pandemic. The District Commission recorded that the appellant was continuously absent. It appears that during the previous posting dates, there was exclusion as granted by the Hon’ble Apex Court. In the said circumstances, we are of the view that it is only just and proper to grant one more opportunity to the appellant to contest the matter on merits.
In the result, this appeal stands allowed, the order dated 05.05.2022 in C.C. No. 85/2020 dismissing the complaint stands set aside and the District Commission is directed to take back the complaint in to the files and proceed with the complaint in accordance with law. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.
The District Commission shall issue notice to both sides for their appearance before the District Commission.
JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR: PRESIDENT
jb RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER