KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION No.14/2023

ORDER DATED: 06.02.2023

(Against the Order in C.C.No.232/2022 of CDRC, Malappuram)

PRESENT:

REVISION PETITIONERS/OPPOSITE PARTIES 1 TO 3:

(by Adv. P. Balakrishnan)

Vs.

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/ 4^th OPPOSITE PARTY:

O R D E R

HON’BLE JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN: PRESIDENT

          This revision is filed by the opposite parties in C.C.No.232/2022 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Malappuram (hereinafter referred to as the District Commission for short).  The complaint of the Revision Petitioners is that, their version filed on 11.08.2022 has not been accepted by the District Commission and that the said Commission is proceeding to dispose of the case without considering their contentions or giving them an opportunity to contest the case.

          It is submitted that, the Revision Petitioners have received notices in the case on 26.05.2022.  The allegation is that the notices received by them were not accompanied by a copy of the complaint filed by the complainant or the documents produced along with the same.  Therefore, they wanted to bring the said fact to the notice of the District Commission.  But according to them there was no sitting on the next posting date.  The counsel for the Revision Petitioners, in the above circumstances took copies of the necessary documents from the District Commission and they filed their version on 11.08.2022.  Admittedly, the time limit stipulated for filing their version had expired by that time.  They filed a petition for receiving their version, condoning the delay in filing the same.  The said petition has been dismissed by the District Commission.  It is aggrieved by the said order that this revision has been filed. 

          This revision is posted before us for admission.  We have heard the counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner.

          In view of the dictum laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (2020)5 SCC 757 it is imperative for the opposite parties to have filed their version within the statutory time limit of thirty days, subject to an extension that may be granted by the District Commission of fifteen days.  In the present case admittedly no such extension has been granted by the District Commission.  Therefore the Revision Petitioners had only thirty days to file their version.  They admit that notice was received on 25.06.2022.  Though they have a contention that the notices issued by the District Commission were not accompanied by the copies of the complaint there is nothing on record to substantiate the said contention.  According to the decision of the Supreme Court, such an objection has to be taken immediately on receipt of notice.  The contention is that there was no sitting on the date to which the case had stood posted.  If that be so, the Revision Petitioners could have filed a petition, putting on record the fact that the notices received by them were not accompanied by copies of the complaint.  The said course having not been adopted, there is nothing on record to show that the notices received by them were not accompanied by the copies of the complaint in the case and other documents.  The resultant position is that, the version filed by the Revision Petitioners was not within the time limit stipulated by the statute.  Their request for extension for time has been rightly declined by the District Commission for the reason that it had no power to grant such an extension of time. 

          For the above reasons, we do not find any error of jurisdiction or other grounds to admit this Revision Petition or to grant any of the reliefs sought for.  This Revision Petition is therefore dismissed.  No costs.

SL