KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REVISION PETITION No. 22/2024
ORDER DATED: 18.04.2024
(Against the Order in C.C. 292/2023 of DCDRC, Pathanamthitta)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
REVISION PETITIONERS:
- Branch Manager, M/s Federal Bank, Pathanamthitta Branch, Pathanamthitta.
- Gold Loan Officer, M/s Federal Bank, Pathanamthitta Branch, Pathanamthitta.
- The Regional Manager, M/s Federal Bank, Pathanamthitta.
(By Adv. Sandeep T. George)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
Radhakrishnan Nair M.R., S/o Narayanan Nair, Anjaly Nivas, Pariyaram P.O., Elanthoor, Pathanamthitta.
ORDER
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
The opposite parties in C.C. No. 292/2023 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pathanamthitta (District Commission for short) are the revision petitioners. They are aggrieved by an order dated 14.12.2023 by which they have been set ex-parte. They have also not filed their version within the statutory time limit. According to the revision petitioners, they were not served with copies of the documents produced along with the complaint. They had been directed to appear only on 17.01.2024 and therefore the statutory time limit for filing version would commence only from the said date. The case of the revision petitioners is that they were directed to appear on 17.01.2024. On the said date they appeared through their lawyer and sought time for filing version. Time was granted and the case was posted to 14.02.2024. On the said date the counsel again sought time and the case was posted to 01.03.2024. On 01.03.2024 the counsel for the revision petitioners again sought time for filing version. The request for time was rejected and they were set ex-parte. It is necessary to note that, even going by the dates given by the petitioners they had appeared before the District Commission on 17.01.2024. The statutory time limit of 30 days stipulated for filing their version therefore expired on 17.02.2024. Though the District Commission has discretion to grant a further period of 15 days for filing version, there was nothing on record to show that such extension of time had been granted by the District Commission in this case. Even on 01.03.2024 the revision petitioners did not file their version. Instead, they had asked for time. The said request was not accepted and they were set ex-parte.
2. The course adopted by the District Commission is in accordance with 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. Therefore we find no infirmity in the order of the District Commission that is sought to be revised. The said order is confirmed. It is contended that, the case now stands posted to 19.04.2024 for ex-parte evidence. In the above circumstances, the only relief that the revision petitioners can claim is for an opportunity to be heard at the time of final disposal of the case by the District Commission as laid down in ARN Infrastructure India Ltd. Vs. Hara Prasad Ghosh dated 04.09.2023 (2023 Live Law (SC) 763) by the Supreme Court.
In view of the above position of law this revision is dismissed, but without prejudice to the rights of the revision petitioners to be heard at the time of final disposal of C.C. No. 292/2023 before the District Commission.
JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
AJITH KUMAR D.: JUDICIAL MEMBER
jb RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
