KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REVISION PETITION No. 43/2023
ORDER DATED: 30.06.2023
(Against the Order in C.C. 196/2022 of CDRC, Pathanamthitta)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
REVISION PETITIONER:
Tata Motors Passenger Vehicles Ltd., (formerly a unit of Tata Motors Ltd.), Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street, Hutatma Chowk, Fort Mumbai-400 001 represented by its CEO.
(By Advs. V. Krishna Menon & S. Reghukumar)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS:
- Sujith D., S/o Damodara Kurup, Indeevaram, Aickad, Kudomon P.O., Pathanamthitta-691 555.
- M.K. Motors, Malankara Buildings, Kodimata, Kottayam-686 039 represented by its proprietor.
- M.K. Motors, Milan Plaza, Churulikode, Pathanamthitta-689 668 represented by its Proprietor.
ORDER
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
The revision petitioner is the first opposite party before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Pathanamthitta (will be referred as District Commission) in C.C. No. 196/2022. As per the order dated 28.02.2023 the petitioner was set ex-parte and the case was posted for evidence. Being aggrieved by the above order the petitioner filed this revision petition by resorting to Section 47(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
2. The case of the complainant is that the motor car purchased by him from the third opposite party on 30.11.2020 was not usable since all the four doors of that car started to rust within a short period and so he would seek for replacement of all the four doors along with compensation and costs.
3. The petitioner would allege that on receiving the copy of the complaint the case was posted to 16.01.2023. But due to the inadvertent mistake of the lawyer of the petitioner the file was misplaced and hence there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner on 16.01.2023. The case was subsequently posted to 28.02.2023 and the petitioner was set ex-parte for want of representation and the case was again posted to 04.04.2023 for the purpose of filing version by second and third opposite parties. On receiving information about the order the Counsel for the petitioner filed version along with the vakalath, but the District Commission refused to accept the version and vakalath. The petitioner would seek for an order to permit him to participate in the proceedings and to contest the case by accepting his version.
4. Heard the Counsel for the petitioner. Perused the grounds stated in the petition.
5. According to the petitioner the District Commission had committed an error in depriving the petitioner of his right to contest the matter by filing version. For arguing the matter he would claim that our Hon’ble High Court in a ruling reported in 2009 (1)KLT 544 had declared that an opposite party is entitled to contest the case on merits even if he was set ex-parte. But the ruling cited by the Counsel for the petitioner has no application to the instant case. Section 13 (2)(b)(ii) confers authority to the District Commission to set the opposite party ex parte if no version has been filed within the stipulated period. This particular aspect has been settled by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in a ruling reported in 2020 (2) KHC 274 in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.. The confusion in this regard has been settled by the Apex Court that the District Forum has no power to extend the time for filing the versions. In view of the legal position as laid down by the Supreme Court it could be seen that the District Commission was perfectly justified in declining to permit the petitioner to take part in the proceedings by filling version. We find no illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the District Commission. So the revision fails.
In the result, the revision petition is dismissed.
JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
jb RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
