KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No.180/2023

JUDGEMENT DATED: 01.06.2023

(Against the Order in C.C.No.120/2022 of CDRC, Kottayam)

PRESENT:

APPELLANT:

(by Adv. Linu R. Babu)

Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

JUDGEMENT

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

          The appellant herein is the 1^st opposite party in C.C.No.120/2022 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kottayam (District Commission for short).  The appellant is aggrieved by the final order dated 19.09.2022 of the District Commission allowing the complaint.  As per the order appealed against, the opposite parties have been directed to give the same quantity of products purchased by the complainant having good quality to the satisfaction of the complainant, failing which, to reimburse Rs.1,21,307/- with interest @9% per annum from 20.08.2021. An amount of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand) has been awarded as compensation in addition to the above.

          2.       The dispute in the case relates to the quality of the paint products manufactured by the appellant and purchased by the complainant from the shop of the 2^nd opposite party.  The complainant is the 1^st respondent herein.  Though the appellant had received notice from the District Commission, they did not appear or contest the case.  No written version was also filed.  It is contended that, the appellant had not received any notice in the case from the District Commission.  Therefore, they were unaware of the proceedings.  They came to know about the proceedings only when the order dated 19.09.2022 was served on them.  Therefore, the appellant seeks an opportunity to plead and prove their case.

          3.       This appeal comes up before us for admission.  We have heard the counsel for the appellant.  We have also perused the records of the case produced before us.  It has been specifically stated in the order appealed against that despite receipt of notice, the opposite parties had not appeared before the District Commission or filed version.  Therefore they were set exparte.  There is nothing on record to support the contention of the appellant that notice was not served on them, as contended.  We notice that, the copy of the order appealed against was received by the appellants in the very same address.  Therefore there is no material or evidence to presume that notices had not been served on the appellant, as alleged. 

          4.       The appellant had not appeared or contested the complaint, despite receipt of notice.  No written version was also filed.  Therefore, the appellant and the other opposite parties were set exparte and the District Commission had proceeded to finally dispose of the complaint on the merits, on the basis of the evidence adduced by the complainant.  As per the dictum in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (2020)5 SCC 757, the proper course to be adopted by the District Commission in a situation where no version is filed by the opposite parties is the same.  In the absence of the written version, the appellant would not be able to put forward their case even if the above appeal is admitted.  Therefore, no purpose would be served by admitting this appeal.

          For the foregoing reasons, we find no grounds to admit this appeal.  The same is accordingly dismissed, no costs.

SL