KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION No.20/2019

ORDER DATED: 27.09.2024

(Against the Order in I.A.No.22/2019 in C.C.No.141/2018 of DCDRC, Kottayam)

PRESENT:

PETITIONER/2^nd OPPOSITE PARTY:

(by Adv. Koshy Newton J.)

Vs.

RESPONDENTS/REVISION PETITIONER:

O R D E R

SRI. AJITH KUMAR  D.  : JUDICIAL MEMBER

          This is a petition filed by the 2^nd opposite party in C.C.No.141/2018 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kottayam (the District Commission for short) by resorting to Section 17 (1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

          2.       The petitioner had filed I.A.No.22/2019 before the District Commission challenging the maintainability of the complaint as a preliminary issue.  On 30.08.2019 the petition was dismissed by the District Commission.  Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order this revision has been filed.

          3.       The complainant in C.C.No.141/2018 had filed an earlier complaint before the District Commission as C.C.No.301/2015 which was dismissed for default against which a restoration petition was filed.  The above petition was also dismissed.  Subsequently, the complainant had filed another complaint as C.C.No.155/2017 after elapsing a period of nine months but no application for condonation of delay was filed. 

4.       The 2^nd opposite party filed I.A.No.335/2017 challenging the maintainability of the complaint.  The District Commission had allowed the application filed by the opposite party and found that the complaint was not maintainable.  Subsequently, the complainant filed C.C.No.141/2018 along with an application under Section 24(a)(2) of the Consumer Protection Act to condone the delay of one year nine months and twenty two days.  The District Commission had allowed the petition without providing an opportunity to the petitioner to oppose the prayer.  Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order a revision was filed before this Commission as Revision Petition No. 48/2018.  The revision was disposed of vide order dated 16.11.2018 granting liberty to the revision petitioner to raise the contention regarding maintainability including that of limitation with a direction that the District Commission shall consider the said contention.

5.       In view of the above direction, the 2^nd opposite party had filed I.A.No.22/2019.  The District Commission dismissed the petition for the reason that it has no power to review its earlier order and the District Commission had declined to abide by the direction issued by this Commission.

6.       The revision was admitted and notice was issued to the opposite parties.  The complainant/ the 1^st opposite party had entered appearance and opposed the petition. 

7.       The records from the District Commission were called for and perused. Heard both sides.

8.       The main grievance of the petitioner is that the District Commission had declined to abide by the direction contained in the order of State Commission in Revision Petition No.RP 48/2018.

9.       In fact, the revision petitioner had challenged the order of the District Commission, condoning the delay caused in filing the complaint.  The above order was not set aside by this Commission.  In the revision, liberty was given to the petitioner to raise the contention of limitation before the District Commission.  There was also a specific direction issued by this Commission that the District Commission shall consider the contention regarding maintainability along with the other contentions raised by the petitioner. 

10.     On a perusal of the order passed by this Commission, it could be seen that the request made by the revision petitioner to set aside the order passed by the District Commission in I.A.No.160/2018 by condoning the delay was not set aside.  The observation contained in paragraph 3 of the order in revision petition no.RP 48/2018 shows that there was no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the District Commission which warrants interference by the State Commission.  So in effect, the finding of the District Commission in condoning the delay was upheld by the State Commission.  But an opportunity was given to the petitioner to raise the plea of limitation along with other contentions to be raised during the version to be filed.  It was further stipulated that the District Commission shall consider the above plea along with other contentions raised by the revision petitioner.  So it is evident that the State Commission did not grant leave to the petitioner to file an application challenging the maintainability of the complaint as one barred by limitation as a preliminary issue.

11.     When an earlier order in I.A.No.160/2018 was upheld by the State Commission, the District Commission cannot consider the plea of limitation as a preliminary issue.  Power contained under Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 could be invoked if there is any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the District Commission.  If the revision petitioner was aggrieved on account of the order passed by the State Commission in Revision Petition no.
RP 48/2018 the only option for him was to approach the Appellate Forum and get the order set aside. 

12.     We find no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the District Commission in dismissing the petition.  The revision lacks merits and hence the same is dismissed. Parties shall bear their costs.

SL