KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION No.60/2023

ORDER DATED: 29.11.2024

(Against the Order in I.A.No.130/2023 in C.C.No.110/2023 of DCDRC, Kollam)

PRESENT:

REVISION PETITIONERS/ OPPOSITE PARTIES:

(by Sandeep R.P., Authorised Representative)

Vs.

RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT:

(by Party in Person)

O R D E R

HON’BLE JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT

The revision petitioners are the opposite parties in C.C.No.110/2023 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kollam (for short the ‘District Commission’).  The respondent herein is the complainant before the District Commission.

2.       The revision petitioners filed I.A.No.130/2023 before the District Commission seeking for impleading the Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Kollam as an additional opposite party.  The District Commission dismissed the said interlocutory application, against which this revision petition has been filed.

3.       Heard both sides and perused the records. 

4.       It appears that the opposite parties received notice on 28.03.2023 and they appeared before the District Commission on 20.04.2023.  A version was filed on 06.05.2023.  Thereafter, on 11.05.2023 the complainant filed an advance petition with objection to the version filed by the opposite parties.  It was contended that the version was filed by a person who was not a party to the complaint and hence the version had to be rejected.  The complainant also requested the District Commission to set the opposite parties ex-parte.  While so, on 23.05.2023, another version was filed before the District Commission by the opposite parties.  Since the version filed on 23.05.2023 was time barred in view of the mandate in Section 38(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short ‘the Act’), the District Commission on 23.05.2023 itself set both the opposite parties ex-parte.

5.       The District Commission also found that the Public Relations Inspector was authorised to appear before the District Commission by the Senior Superintendent of Post Office, who was not a party to the complaint and hence the Public Relations Inspector could not appear before the District Commission on the basis of the said authorisation.  The District Commission further found that the Senior Superintendent of Post Office was not a party to the complaint and hence he was not authorised to file version.  The District Commission also dismissed I.A.No.130/2023 seeking for impleading the Senior Superintendent of Post Office as the additional opposite party to the complaint.

6.       Having gone through the relevant inputs, we are of the view that since the 1^st opposite party is the postmistress of Mayyanad post office, the Public Relations Officer was rightly authorised by the Senior Superintendent of Post Office to appear before the District Commission for the 1^st opposite party.  The Senior Superintendent of Post Office himself had filed the version before the District Commission on 06.05.2023.  The Senior Superintendent of Post Office is, no doubt, an officer competent to file pleadings in respect of matters relating to the functioning of the post offices under his jurisdiction. Since the allegation is regarding the functioning of the post office under the jurisdiction of the Senior Superintendent of Post Office, we do not find any reason to hold that the Senior Superintendent of Post Office was not a person competent to file version before the District Commission. For the said reason, the Senior Superintendent of Post Office was also competent to authorise the Public Relations Inspector to represent before the District Commission for the post office. However, for that purpose, it is not necessary to get himself impleaded as an opposite party.  Since the impleading of the Senior Superintendent of Post Office was not necessary, we are of the view that the dismissal of I.A.No.130/2023 does not call for any interference by this Commission.

7.       Even though the version was filed on 06.05.2023 by the Senior Superintendent of Post Office, the complainant filed objection to the said version stating that the version was filed by a person who was not a party to the complaint and hence the version had to be rejected.  In view of the above objection, another version was filed before the District Commission by the opposite parties on 23.05.2023.  The order impugned would show that the opposite parties were set ex-parte on the reason that the version filed on 23.05.2023 was time barred.  It is true that the version filed on 23.05.2023 was time barred.  However, the version filed before the District Commission on 06.05.2023 by the Senior Superintendent of Post Office was in accordance with law.  Therefore, the District Commission ought not to have set the opposite parties ex-parte.  For the said reason, we set aside the order of the District Commission setting the opposite parties ex-parte, as the said order is not legal, proper and correct.

In the result, the revision petition stands disposed of as hereinbelow:-

1. the order passed by the District Commission dismissing I.A.No.130/2023 stands confirmed,
2. the order of the District Commission setting the opposite parties ex-parte stands set aside as the opposite parties had already filed the version within the statutory period in accordance with law,

         and

3. the District Commission is directed to accept the version filed on 06.05.2023 by the Superintendent of Post Office as the version of the opposite parties and dispose of the complaint in accordance with law.

SL