KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REVISION PETITION No.03/2022
ORDER DATED: 29.01.2024
(Against the Order in C.C.No.488/2018 of DCDRC, Ernakulam)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN | : | PRESIDENT |
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. | : | JUDICIAL MEMBER |
SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN | : | MEMBER |
REVISION PETITIONERS/OPPOSITE PARTIES:
1. | M/s Anta Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mangattoor, Kolencherry P.O., Ernakulam – 682 311 represented by its Managing Director, Midhun Kuruvila Kurian |
2. | CEO, M/s Anat Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mangattoor, Kolencherry P.O., Ernakulam – 682 311 |
(by Adv. M. Unnikrishnan)
Vs.
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
| Sandeesh Subash, S/o P.K. Subash, ‘Krishna Nivas’, Railway Station P.O., Thiruvalla – 689 111 |
O R D E R
HON’BLE JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN: PRESIDENT
This revision is directed against an order dated 06.03.2020 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (the District Commission for short) in C.C.No.488/2018 setting them exparte. The Revision Petitioners are the opposite parties before the District Commission.
2. The respondent herein is the complainant. According to the Revision Petitioners, on receipt of notice, they entered appearance before the District Commission on 10.01.2020. The District Commission directed them to file version and posted the case to 28.02.2020. But, since the file regarding the transactions between the Revision Petitioners and the complainant had been misplaced, they could not contact their counsel or file the version. Thereafter, according to them, the file was traced out but by that time spread of the Corona virus took place. Lock downs were imposed. On 28.02.2020 the case was adjourned to 15.12.2021. The next effective posting was on 06.03.2021. On that day the Revision Petitioners filed their version. But it was not accepted and they were set exparte. The said order is under challenge in this revision.
3. According to counsel for the Revision Petitioner the omission to file their version occurred in the circumstances described above and due to the circumstances beyond their control. They had substantial contentions in the complaint which require consideration of the District Commission on the merits. Therefore, they seek interference with the order under revision and pray for a chance to contest the complaint on the merits.
4. In view of the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (2020)5 SCC 757 neither the District Commission nor the State Commission has the power to receive a version that was not filed within the statutory time limit. The proper course to be adopted by the District Commission in such a case is to proceed to finally dispose of the complaint on the basis of the evidence brought before it by the complainant. It is the said procedure that has been adopted by the District Commission in this case. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order under revision. The only limited right available for the Revision Petitioners is to be heard at the time of final hearing of the complaint.
5. The legal position being as stated above, this Revision Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. But the dismissal of this revision shall be without prejudice to the right of the Revision Petitioners to be heard at the time of final disposal of the complaint.
JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN | : | PRESIDENT |
AJITH KUMAR D. | : | JUDICIAL MEMBER |
K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN | : | MEMBER |
SL
