KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION No.30/2023

ORDER DATED: 01.06.2023

(Against the Order in C.C.No.142/2022 of CDRC, Palakkad)

PRESENT:

REVISION PETITIONER/OPPOSITE PARTY

(by Adv. Sandeep T. George)

Vs.

RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT:

O R D E R

HON’BLE JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN: PRESIDENT

          The opposite party in C.C.No.142/2022 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Palakkad (District Commission for short) is the Revision Petitioner.  As per an order dated 17.01.2023 the District Commission dismissed the Review Application, R.A.No.01/2023 filed by the Revision Petitioner.  R.A.No.01/2023 was filed by the Revision Petitioner seeking review of an order dated 20.10.2022 closing the pleadings and another order dated 01.12.2022 rejecting the version filed by the Revision Petitioner.  The respondent is the complainant before the District Commission.

          2.       According to the complainant, he had availed a loan from the Revision Petitioner bank and had repaid the same on 29.03.2022.  Even after paying the entire loan amount the opposite party did not return the title deeds causing needless delay and hardships to him.  Title deed was finally returned only on 10.06.2022.  As a result, the complainant was not able to sell the property as per an agreement for sale executed by him.  He therefore claimed an amount of Rs.50,00,000/-(Rupees Fifty Lakhs) as compensation.

          3.       The complaint was admitted and notice was issued to the Revision Petitioner.  The Revision Petitioner received notice intimating appearance in court on 12.09.2022.  As there was no sitting, the case was adjourned to 20.10.2022.  According to the Revision Petitioner, on 15.10.2022 the Advocate of the Revision Petitioner met with an accident and was hospitalised in a serious condition.  The Revision Petitioner was therefore not able to contact the lawyer, to give necessary instructions for preparing and filing the written version.  It was only after the discharge of the lawyer on 01.12.2022 that the written version was filed.  The version was rejected by the District Commission since he had not filed version within the stipulated time limit.  Though the Revision Petitioner had filed a Review Application, as per the order under revision, the same has also been dismissed without going into the merits.  It is contended that the District Commission ought to have considered the merits of the contentions put forward by the Revision Petitioner.  Since the delay in this case was caused due to circumstances beyond the control of the Revision Petitioner, it is contended that the District Commission ought to have received the written version filed by the Revision Petitioner.

          4.       This Revision Petition is posted before us for admission.  We have heard the counsel for the Revision Petitioner and have perused the records produced before us.  The Revision Petitioner had admittedly received notice in C.C.No.142/2022 intimating him that he should appear on 12.09.2022.  The District Commission has noted that notice was served on the Revision Petitioner on 17.08.2022.  Therefore, the statutory period for filing written version expired on 16.09.2022.  The grace period of fifteen days that the District Commission was empowered to grant also expired on 01.10.2022.  Therefore, the written version filed on 01.12.2022 was clearly out of time.  In view of the judgement 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 proper course to be adopted by the District Commission in such circumstances was to proceed to finally dispose of the complaint on the basis of the evidence produced by the complainant.  Since it has been laid down that the time limit stipulated statutorily for filing written version cannot be extended under any circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the course adopted by the District Commission.

          For the above reasons, we find no grounds to admit this Revision Petition.  The same is accordingly dismissed.  No costs.

SL