KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVIEW APPLICATION No. 28/2023 in C.C. No. 34/2022

ORDER DATED: 03.08.2023

PRESENT:

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.                                                    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A                                              : MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                        : MEMBER

REVIEW PETITIONERS:

1. Minimol, Indeevaram, GRA-C-84, Cheruvally Lane, Gandhipuram, Sreekariyam P.O., Thiruvananthapuram-17.
2. P.R. Murthy, Flat No. 6 E, Cardial Corona Nanthencode, Kowdiar P.O., Thiruvananthapuram-695 003.
3. S.S. Maya, Sreesylam, GNRA-10, Kuriyathy, Manacaud P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.
4. Sophiamma Thomas, Eruppakkattu C-46, Elangath Nagar, Thirumala P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. K. Jayachandran)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Dr. Gopinadhan Pillai P., Guruvayoorappan Villa, Kizhuvilam P.O., Attingal, Thiruvananthapuram-685 104.

ORDER

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

This is an application filed by the opposite parties 3, 6, 7 & 9 in C.C. No. 34/2022 seeking review of the order of this Commission dated 08.06.2023 setting the petitioners ex-parte.

2.  The averments contained in the petition in brief are as below:

The Opposite party is a Co-operative Society registered under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act.  The petitioners were nominated as the Directors of the Society and the Society was running smoothly.  The affairs of the Society were being carried out by the President and Secretary.  Vanchiyoor Police had registered a crime against the Society on the basis of a petition filed by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies.  Subsequently several depositors filed petitions against the Society and further crimes were registered by the Police.  The term of the Board of the Society later got terminated and the Society is now under an Administrator.

3.  The complainant, without impleading the Administrator had filed this complaint.  The complaint was posted to 20.03.2023 for return of notice on which date there was no sitting and therefore it was adjourned to 08.06.2023 by notification.  But in the meantime, the time fixed for filing version (i.e; 45 days) elapsed.  The delay was caused due to a mistake.  The case ought to have posted within the requisite period for filing version which according to the petitioner is an error apparent on the face of the record.  Hence he would seek for review of the order dated 08.06.2023.

4.  Heard the counsel for the petitioner. Perused the records in C.C. No. 34/2022.  The notice issued by this Commission was served on the first petitioner on 13.02.2023 and other petitioners on10.02.2023.

5.  Section 38(2) (a) of the Consumer Protection Act stipulates 45 days as the time limit for filing a version by the opposite party on receipt of the notice issued by the Commission.  It is obligatory for the opposite party to file version within 30 days after receiving the notice or within a further period of 15 days with the leave of the Commission.  So the version was to be filed within 45 days.

6.  The Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “New India Assurance Company Ltd Vs Hilly Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd” had declared that the State Commission or the District Commission has no authority to extend the period for filing the version.  In view of the interpretation given by the Supreme Court this Commission cannot extend the period for filing the version.  There is no error apparent on the face of the record so as to review the order.  Hence the petition is only to be dismissed.

In the result, this petition is dismissed.

         AJITH KUMAR  D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                                        BEENA KUMARY. A         : MEMBER

jb                                                                     RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER