KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION No.93/2022

ORDER DATED: 27.01.2023

(Against the Order in C.C.No.443/2021 of DCDRC, Thrissur)

PRESENT:

REVISION PETITIONER/OPPOSITE PARTY:

(by Adv. Aswin Gopakumar)

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

O R D E R

HON’BLE JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN: PRESIDENT

          The opposite party in C.C.No.443/2021 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrissur (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum for short) is before us, aggrieved by two orders dated 26.05.2022 and 12.08.2022.  As per the order dated 26.05.2022 the Revision Petitioner has been set exparte.  It has also been noticed that the Revision Petitioner has not filed version till that date.  As per order dated 12.08.2022, I.A.No.752/2022 filed by the Revision Petitioner for setting aside the order declaring him exparte has been dismissed.  According to the Revision Petitioner, both the orders are unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

          2.       The respondent herein is the complainant before the District Commission.  The complaint has been filed claiming compensation for medical negligence.  According to the Revision Petitioner, summons was received in the case on 25.02.2022.  They had entered appearance in the case on 23.04.2022.  Thereafter, the matter stood posted for filing version on 26.05.2022.  It is stated that, on the said date another counsel had been entrusted to represent the matter and seek an extension of time for filing version.  However, there was no representation and the Revision Petitioner was set exparte on the said date.  Thereafter, the Revision Petitioner fled I.A.No.752/2022 for setting aside the order declaring them exparte.  I.A.No.753/2022 was filed for accepting the version filed by the Revision Petitioner.  Both the petitions have been dismissed by the orders produced as Annexures F and G in the Revision Petition. 

          3.       According to the counsel for the Revision Petitioner in view of the order of the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020, the periods of limitation stipulated by all enactments in the country were remaining extended in view of the spread of Covid Pandemic, 2019.  Such extension of time was available up to 29.05.2022.  Therefore, the Revision Petitioner had time up to 29.05.2022 to file version.  It was denying the benefit of the order of the Supreme Court that the Revision Petitioner was set exparte on 26.05.2022.  It is also contended that the version filed by them ought to have been accepted and an opportunity ought to have been provided to them to contest the complaint.  The counsel seeks such an opportunity in this case.

          4.       Heard.  The facts in this case are not in dispute.  Even according to the Revision Petitioner though they had received summons on 28.02.2022 and appeared before the District Commission on 23.04.2022 they had not filed their version within the statutory time limit.  It is true that the order of the Supreme Court extending the period of limitation in view of spread of the Covid Pandemic, 2019 was in force at the relevant time.  However, the said extended time limit also would not help the Revision Petitioner in this case.

          5        The order of the Supreme Court extending the time limit up to 29.05.2022 was in force when the Revision Petitioner was set exparte on 26.05.2022.  Though it is true that the Revision Petitioner was set exparte without giving the benefit of the extension of time, grant of the said benefit also would not have improved matters in any way.  This is for the reason that, version was actually filed by the Revision Petitioner only in August 2022, along with the petition to extend the time limit.  The said petition has been rightly dismissed by this Commission.  In view of the binding dictum of the Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (2020)5 SCC 757, no extension of time for filing version beyond the statutory time limit could be granted by the District Commission or by this Commission.  In such circumstances, the only course open to the District Commission was to proceed to settle the dispute exparte.  It is the said course that has been adopted by the District Commission in this case. 

          6.       In view of the above, we find no infirmity in the order under revision.  We find no grounds to admit this revision or to grant any of the reliefs sought for.
          This revision fails and is accordingly dismissed.  No costs.

SL