KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REVIEW APPLICATION No.53/2024 in C.C.No.214/2017
ORDER DATED: 29.11.2024
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR | : | PRESIDENT |
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. | : | JUDICIAL MEMBER |
SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN | : | MEMBER |
REVIEW PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:
| Anuja Mohan, W/o Rajkumar, T.C.77/1187, Bagath Singh Road, Pettah P.O., Thiruvananthapuram |
(by Adv. R. Rajakumar)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS/OPPOSITE PARTIES:
1. | The KAIL Limited, Auto Cars Compound, Adalat Road, Aurangabad, Maharashtra represented by its Managing Director |
2. | Ideal Home Appliances, T.C.28/177, Opposite Telephone Exchange, Kaithamukku, Thiruvananthapuram represented by its Managing Director |
O R D E R
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
This is an application filed under Section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act to review the order dated 16.10.2024 dismissing C.C.No.214/2017.
2. On 16.10.2024 the complaint was dismissed due to the absence of the complainant. According to the petitioner, he was attending a training programme conducted by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on the Concept and Technique of Mediation. Hence, the petitioner could not appear before this Commission hence he would seek for reviewing the order.
3. Heard counsel for the petitioner. Perused the records.
4. The Consumer Protection Act does not empower this Commission to set aside the order of dismissal restoring the dismissed complaint. When statute does not contemplate a provision for restoration of a complaint which was dismissed for default, it cannot be indirectly implemented under the guise of review. Since this Commission has no power to restore a complaint which was dismissed for default, the petition is only liable to be dismissed.
In the result the review application is dismissed. Parties shall bear their respective costs.
JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR | : | PRESIDENT |
AJITH KUMAR D. | : | JUDICIAL MEMBER |
K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN | : | MEMBER |
SL
