KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 453/2022
JUDGMENT DATED: 03.10.2022
(Against the Order in C.C. 180/2020 of CDRC, Thiruvananthapuram)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
SRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI.RANJIT. R : MEMBER
SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
APPELLANT:
The Manager, Diya Mobikes Hero Moto Corp, T.C. 3/87-4, Unity Towers, Thiruvananthapuram-4.
(By Advs. Bimal V.S. & Kiran P. Dev)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
Syam Kumar S., Sree Geetham, T.C. 22/737, PLRA F-43/2, Sasthamangalam P.O., Thiruvananthapuram-695 010.
JUDGMENT
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
This appeal is filed by the opposite party in C.C. No. 180/2020 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (District Commission for short), challenging an order dated 25.06.2022 allowing the complaint filed by the respondent. The order has been passed ex-parte for the reason that, despite service of notice the appellant had not entered appearance or filed version. In the absence of any version, the District Commission had proceeded to dispose of the matter on the merits, after setting the appellant ex-parte. Accordingly, the final order has been passed allowing the complaint as prayed for.
2. According to the counsel for the appellant, notice had been served on the appellant during the period of Covid-19 pandemic. Since the office was not functioning, the notice had been received by the security staff, but the appellant was not informed of the same. The appellant came to know of the order only when a copy of the order of the District Commission was received in the usual course. According to the learned counsel, the order has been passed without allowing the appellant to file version and to contest the case. Since the Covid pandemic was spreading all over the country at the time when the notice was served, the counsel pleads that we should take a lenient view in his favour.
3. Having heard the counsel for the appellant, we are afraid that we are not in a position to accede to the request put forward. As per the dictum of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (2020)5 SCC 757, the maximum time limit available to an opposite party to file version in a complaint is 30 days, which could be extended by a period of 15 days by the Commission. If no version is filed within the said time limit, the proper course to be adopted by the District Commission is to set the opposite party ex-parte and to proceed to finally dispose of the matter on the merits. Since the procedure adopted by the District Commission is in consonance with the dictum laid down by the Constitution Bench decision, we do not find any ground to admit this appeal or to grant any of the reliefs sought for. Though it is true that the appellant was set ex-parte at a time when the Covid pandemic was spreading and an order granted by the Supreme Court granting extension of all periods stipulated by the various laws prescribing time limits for doing various acts was in force, in this case, the order declaring the appellant ex-parte was not challenged and has therefore become final and conclusive. For the above reasons, this appeal is dismissed.
The office shall refund to the appellant the statutory deposit made at the time of filing this appeal, on proper acknowledgement.
JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
T.S.P. MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER
RANJIT. R : MEMBER
BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
jb
