KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 211/2020
JUDGMENT DATED: 19.01.2023
(Against the Order in C.C. 331/2019 of CDRF, Thrissur)
PRESENT:
SRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI.RANJIT. R : MEMBER
SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER
APPELLANTS:
- Sreevalsam Educational Trust represented by its Chairman, Dr. V.P. Gopinathan, Naduvattam, Edappal, Kololamba P.O, Malappuram.
- Sreevalsam Educational Trust represented by its Secretary, Krishnakumar U.S., Naduvattam, Edappal, Kololamba P.O, Malappuram.
- Sreevalsam Educational Trust represented by its Treasurer, Murali Mohan E.T, Naduvattam, Edappal, Kololamba P.O, Malappuram.
- Dr. V.P. Gopinadhan, Kizhakke Pisharath, Anchery, Ollur Village, Thrissur.
- K. Vijayan, T.C. No. 5/50/3, Kunnathu Mana, Kalathod, Ollurkkara, Thrissur.
(By Advs. Biju Vazhayila & N.G. Mahesh)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
Vimala Kumari, Kokkattil Veettil, Kanimangalam, Thrissur-680 027.
(By Adv. R. Suja Madhav)
JUDGMENT
SRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH: JUDICIAL MEMBER
The opposite parties in C.C. No. 331/2019 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrissur, (in short, the District Forum) have filed the appeal against the order passed by the District Forum by which they were directed to return Rs. 5,00,000/- with interest from 23.11.2012 to the complainant.
2. The complainant has filed the complaint against the opposite parties claiming Rs. 5,00,000/- deposited by her with the opposite parties, with interest. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has filed the complaint. Opposite parties did not appear or file version. Hence they were set ex-parte.
3. Complainant filed proof affidavit and documents produced by her were marked as Exts. P1 to P6. Considering the evidence adduced by the complainant, the District Forum has passed the impugned order.
4. Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum the opposite parties have filed the present appeal. On receipt of notice of the appeal from this Commission the respondent appeared through counsel.
5. Heard both sides. Perused the records.
6. The parties are referred according to their status/rank in the original complaint.
7. In the order passed by the District Forum it is stated that on admitting the complaint notices were properly sent to all opposite parties. The opposite parties 2, 4 & 5 had accepted the notice and opposite parties 1 & 3 refused to accept the notice. Any one of the opposite parties neither appeared before the District Forum nor sent any version. Hence the opposite parties were set ex-parte.
8. The appellants have no case that they had not received the notice from the District Forum. In the Appeal Memorandum it is stated that the reason for non-appearance of the opposite parties before the District Forum is that the then office bearers of the Trust failed to discharge their functions properly and there was lack of unity among the members with regard to the administration. As a result, the then office bearers failed to entrust the matter with a lawyer in order to contest the matter before the District Forum. Now the new office bearers took charge of the Trust and while verifying the back file available with the office of the Trust, noticed certain papers pertaining to the matter of the complaint before the District Forum. Now the new office bearers unanimously decided to prosecute the matter.
9. The counsel for the appellants submitted that the opposite parties may be given opportunity to file version and contest the matter and for that purpose the order passed by the District Forum may be set aside and the matter may be remanded to the District Forum for fresh trial. The counsel for the respondent pointed out that the opposite parties did not file version within the time limit after receipt of notice from the District Forum. The District Forum has no power to extend the statutory time limit for filing version and hence no purpose will be served even if the matter is remanded to the District Forum for fresh disposal.
10. In view of the binding 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, it is not possible to accede to the request made by the counsel for the appellants. It has been held by the Constitution Bench that where an opposite party omits to file version within the statutory time limit of 30 days or within the time extended by the District Commission the matter has to be proceeded on the basis of the evidence produced by the complainant, after declaring the opposite party ex-parte. According to the dictum of the Constitution bench the statutory time limit of 30 days for filing version can be extended only for a period of 15 days by the District Commission. In the present case, admittedly no such extension was granted. Admittedly in the present case the opposite parties were set ex-parte long after the statutory time limit for filing version had expired. The above being the position, no purpose will be served by remanding the matter for fresh disposal after setting aside the order of the District Forum, it will be a futile exercise. Further, no sufficient reason is stated by the appellants/opposite parties for not appearing before the District Forum, after receipt of notice from the District Forum. For the above reason, the appeal is to be dismissed.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
It is seen that as per the order of this Commission, while granting stay, the appellants had deposited Rs. 2,25,000/- before the District Forum. The appellants are permitted to obtain release of the said amount on filing proper application before the District Forum.
Sd/-
T.S.P. MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER
Sd/-
RANJIT. R : MEMBER
Sd/-
RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
jb
