KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 146/2023

JUDGMENT DATED: 13.03.2023

(Against the Order in C.C. 225/2022 of CDRC, Malappuram)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN     : PRESIDENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.                                                    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI.RANJIT. R                                                                   : MEMBER

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A                                              : MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                        : MEMBER

APPELLANTS:

1. Ashraf, Travel Vision Holidays, First Floor, Taj Building Centre, Bazaar Junction, Pookkattiri, Malappuram-676 506.

2. Ashraf, Travel Vision Holidays, D.D. Mile Stone, Room No. 101, 2^nd Floor, Kadavanthra Junction, Cochin, Ernakulam-682 020.

                    (By Advs. Abdul Shukkur Arakkal & Manu Mohan Charummood)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Umesh R., Nandhu Nivas, Schoolparamb, Ummathur, Pazhamalloor P.O., Malappuram District-676 506.

JUDGMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT

            The opposite parties in C.C. No. 225/2022 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Malappuram (in short the District Commission) are in appeal.  The appellants are tour operators.  The complaint was filed by the respondent herein alleging that he had been part of a conducted tour that was organized by the appellants.  According to the respondent/complainant, a lot of deficiencies had occurred in the service of the appellants during the tour.  As a result, it is stated that the complainant and his wife suffered from various discomforts like diarrhea, vomiting etc.  apart from other health problems.  He therefore claimed compensation from the appellants for the deficiency in service. 

2.  Though notice had been issued to the appellants, they did not turn up.  Therefore, they were set ex-parte and the complaint has been allowed by the District Commission placing reliance on the unchallenged evidence available in this case.  

3.  According to the appellants, they had not been served with notice in this case.  It is stated that their office had been closed during the Covid pandemic period and had not been functioning thereafter.  The counsel for the appellants have a plea regarding their financial problems also.

4.  Heard.  The District Commission has stated in paragraph 7 of the order appealed against that though notice had been served on the opposite parties they did not turn up.  For the said reason, they were set ex-parte.  Absolutely, no evidence has been produced by the opposite parties to show that the said observation of the District Commission is erroneous in any manner.  We notice that, this is a case in which no version has been filed by the appellants, though they had received notice from the District Commission.  Therefore, 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 not possible for them to file a written version now.  For the above reason, there is no point in admitting this appeal or calling for the Lower Court Records. This appeal is therefore dismissed.

The amount of statutory deposit made by the appellants shall be refunded to them, on proper acknowledgment. 

                               Sd/-

JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN  : PRESIDENT

                             Sd/-

AJITH KUMAR D.  : JUDICIAL MEMBER

                   Sd/-

RANJIT. R                : MEMBER

      Sd/-

                                                                        BEENA KUMARY. A         : MEMBER

    Sd/-

                                                                        RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER

jb