KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REVISION PETITION No.09/2023
ORDER DATED: 27.02.2023
(Against the Order in C.C.No.525/2020 of DCDRC, Thrissur)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN | : | PRESIDENT |
SRI. RANJIT R. | : | MEMBER |
SMT. BEENA KUMARY A. | : | MEMBER |
SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN | : | MEMBER |
REVISION PETITIONER/OPPOSITE PARTY:
| Central Speciality Diagnostic Centre, Aurum Complex, Patturaikkal, Thrissur represented by its Proprietor/Director |
(by Advs. Nair Ajaykrishnan & Narayan R.)
Vs.
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
| Shafi K.S., S/o Saidu represented by Power of Attorney Holder Majeed, Panikkaveettil House, Iringapuram P.O., Puthenpalli (via), Thrissur – 680 103 |
O R D E R
HON’BLE JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN: PRESIDENT
The opposite party in C.C.No.525/2020 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur (hereinafter referred to as the District Commission for short) is in revision, aggrieved by an order dated 16.11.2022 in I.A.No.616/2022. The said petition was filed by the Revision Petitioner for setting aside an order dated 09.05.2022 declaring them exparte. The District Commission found that there was no such order in existence and that the petition was devoid of either merits or bonafides. The District Commission has gone on to observe that the Revision Petitioner had represented falsely on 22.03.2022 that their version had been filed. Later on, it was found that their version was actually filed only on 10.06.2022, months after the expiry of the time limit. It is contended that, the order of the District Commission is absolutely without jurisdiction and that it is liable to be set aside.
2. This revision has come up before us for admission. We have heard the counsel for the Revision Petitioner. It is contended that, the written version was prepared, disputing the various allegations made in the complaint. According to the Revision Petitioner, the complaint is filed without bonafides and it is only to be dismissed. The counsel therefore contends that it is necessary to set aside the order under revision and to grant the Revision Petitioner an opportunity to contest the matter before the District Commission.
3. We have heard the counsel for the Revision Petitioner. A perusal of the order under revision shows that what has weighed with the court in disallowing the prayer of the Revision Petitioner was that, a false submission had been made on their behalf on 22.03.2022, that version had been filed by them on that day. It is also stated in the order that, the order dated 09.05.2022 that was sought to be set aside was non-existent. There is no explanation in the Revision Petition on the above aspects. Since both the above reasons remain undisputed, the District Commission cannot be found fault with for having dismissed the petition filed by the Revision Petitioner.
4. We find no error of jurisdiction or other infirmity in the order of the District Commission warranting interference with the same in revision. This revision petition is therefore dismissed. No costs.
JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN | : | PRESIDENT |
RANJIT R. | : | MEMBER |
BEENA KUMARY A. | : | MEMBER |
K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN | : | MEMBER |
SL
