KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION No.36/2024

ORDER DATED: 28.10.2024

(Against the Order in I.A.No.216/2023 in C.C.No.16/2019 of CDRC, Pathanamthitta)

PRESENT:

REVISION PETITIONER/3^rd OPPOSITE PARTY:

(by Advs. Dhanuja L.R. & B.A. Krishnakumar)

Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

(by Adv. M. Nizamudeen)

ORDER

SRI. AJITH KUMAR  D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

          This is an application filed by the 3^rd opposite party in C.C.No.16/2019 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pathanamthitta (the District Commission for short).

2.       The complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties Nos.1 and 2.  Since the revision petitioner/complainant was in the United States he was arrayed as the 3^rd opposite party.  The revision petitioner had availed a loan from the 2^nd opposite party for the construction of a residential house.  The residential house was insured with the 1^st opposite party from 28.07.2017 onwards.  The policy conditions would cover the loss of damages to the property of the insured as a result of earthquakes, flood or other natural calamities.  During the rainy season flood occurred and the water level had reached 4ft. and substantial damage was caused to the residence of the complainant.  The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties had awarded only Rs.4,71,485/-(Rupees Four Lakhs Seventy One Thousand Four Hundred and Eight Five only) towards the loss and damages to the building.  The amount awarded was too meagre and hence there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint was filed. 

3.       The District Commission had set the revision petitioner ex-parte and the application filed by the revision petitioner to set aside the ex-parte order was dismissed. 

4.       According to the revision petitioner, the order passed by the District Commission is arbitrary.  Since the petitioner was in the United States, he can file written version after elapsing the period of his stay in the US under Section 15(5) of the Limitation Act which entitles the petitioner to exclude the period of limitation.

5.       The contesting respondent had entered appearance through their counsel.

6.       Heard.  Perused the affidavit and the copy of the order passed by the District Commission.  The District Commission had declined to set aside the order setting the petitioner ex-parte on the reason that the District Commission has no power to do so.  Section 40 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 can be invoked only in cases where error apparent on the face of the record is noticed by the District Commission.  When the Consumer Protection Act does not stipulate a provision for setting aside the ex-parte order, such an order cannot be passed through indirect means by way of review. 

7.       The District Commission had considered all these aspects and rightly declined the request made by the petitioner to set aside the ex-parte order.  The Court sitting in revision can entertain a revision petition if the “District Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity”.

8.       We have perused the order passed by the District Commission.  We find no irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the District Commission.  So we find that calling for the records is not necessary for disposing of this revision petition.  Since there is no illegality or material irregularity is crept in the order passed, the revision is only to be dismissed.

In the result, the revision petition is dismissed.

SL