KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No.126/2023

JUDGEMENT DATED: 17.04.2023

(Against the Order in C.C.No.133/2022 of CDRC, Kollam)

PRESENT:

APPELLANTS:

(by Adv. Midhun Sree Mohan V.)

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

JUDGEMENT

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

                    The opposite parties in C.C.No.133/2022 are the appellants before us.  According to them, though notice from the District Commission was received in the Office of the opposite party, the employee in the same firm misplaced it along with some other documents.  Therefore, the opposite party’s administration did not get sufficient knowledge about the same.  In the above circumstances, thy could not appear before the District Commission.  They were therefore set exparte.  As per the exparte order, they have been directed to refund an amount of Rs.8,500/-(Rupees Eight Thousand Five Hundred), to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) as compensation and a further amount of Rs.3,000/-(Rupees Three Thousand) as costs.  The contention is that, they had not got sufficient opportunity to plead and prove their case. 

2.       Heard counsel for the appellant.  It is not in dispute that, the appellants had received notice from the District Commission.  According to them, the notice was misplaced and therefore the appellants could not appear before the District Commission or contest the case by filing their written version.  The District Commission therefore declared them exparte and has allowed the complaint on merits, on the basis of the evidence adduced by them.  Though the appellants seek interference with the order of the District Commission and plead for another opportunity to file the written version and to contest the case, we are not able to accede to the said request.  A Constitution Bench of the Apex Court has in New India Assurance Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.(2019) 8 SCC 857, conclusively held that an opposite party has to file his version within the stipulated time limit.  If that is not done, no extension of time on any ground shall be given.  In view of the above authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court, we are powerless to grant time to the appellants to file their written version or to contest the case.  Therefore, this appeal is dismissed.

          In the above circumstances, we do not find any purpose in admitting this appeal.  This appeal is therefore dismissed.  No costs.

Refund the amount of statutory deposit made at the time of filing this appeal to the appellant on proper acknowledgement.

SL