KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION No.02/2023

ORDER DATED:13.01.2023

(Against the Order in C.C.No.208/2022 of DCDRC, Malappuram)

PRESENT:

REVISION PETITIONER/OPPOSITE PARTY:

(by Adv. Soumya G.)

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

O R D E R

HON’BLE JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN: PRESIDENT

                         This revision is filed against an order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Malappuram (hereinafter referred to as the District Commission for short) in I.A.No.695/2022 in C.C.No.208/2022.  The petition was filed by the Revision Petitioner for receiving the version filed in the said case.  The Revision Petitioner is the opposite party in C.C.No.208/2022.

          2.       According to the Revision Petitioner, the C.C. stood posted for filing version on 10.08.2022.  However, the counsel for the Revision Petitioner was sick due to Rheumatic complaints (Rakthavadam) and was undergoing treatment from an Ayurvedic Physician.  According to his advice, it was not possible for counsel of the Revision Petitioner to appear before the District Commission from 04.08.2022 to 23.09.2022.  Therefore, he could not collect the relevant records from the bank and file version within the statutory period.  It was in the above circumstances that I.A.No.695/2022 was filed before the District Commission for receiving the version after condoning the delay.  However it is complained that the I.A. has been dismissed by a cryptic order.  The counsel seeks interference with the said order under revision.

          3.       This petition comes up before us for admission.  We have heard the counsel, Adv. Soumya for the Revision Petitioner.  As per Section 38(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) the time for filing the version is only thirty days.  The relevant portion of the statutory provision reads as under:

(3)   The District Commission shall, if the complaint admitted by it under sub-section (2) of section 36 relates to goods in respect of which the procedure specified in sub-section (2) cannot be followed, or if the complaint relates to any services,—

(a) refer a copy of such complaint to the opposite party directing him to give his version of the case within a period of thirty days or such extended period not exceeding fifteen days as may be granted by the District Commission;

                   (Emphasis supplied)

Therefore, the statutory time limit available to the Revision Petitioner for filing version is limited to thirty days which can be extended by a period of fifteen days by the District Commission at its discretion.

          It has been laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court that the time limit for filing version cannot be extended beyond the statutory limit.  In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (2020)5 SCC 757 a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court has laid down as follows:

62.     “To conclude, we hold that our answer to the first question is that the District Forum has no power to extend the time for filing the response to the complaint beyond the period of 15 days in addition to 30 days as is envisaged under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act; and the answer to the second question is that the commencing point of limitation of 30 days under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act would be from the date of receipt of the notice accompanied with the complaint by the opposite party, and not mere receipt of the notice of the complaint.”

          The above being the position of law, we find no infirmity in the order under revision.  The District Commission was fully justified in rejecting the prayer of the Revision Petitioner.  The said order is confirmed.  This revision is dismissed.

SL