KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION No. 13/2021

ORDER DATED: 10.08.2021

(Against the Order in I.A. No. 137/21in C.C. 466/16 of CDRC, Kannur)

PRESENT:

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

SRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH                                             : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI.RANJIT. R                                                         : MEMBER

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A                                     : MEMBER

SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN                                : MEMBER

REVISION PETITIONER:

B. Viswanathan, Swetha, R.C. Road, Payyambalam, Kannur-670 001.

          (By Advs. A.K. Pradeep Kumar & Thomas A. John)

                                             Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Sonal Manager, U.C.O. Bank, Sonal Office, Manikkath Road, Ravipuram, Peramannur, Ernakulam-695 036.
2. Chief Manager, U.C.O. Bank, Madathil Complex, S.N. Park Road, Kannur-670 001.

ORDER

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

The complainant in C.C. No. 466/2016 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kannur is before us in revision challenging an order dated 02.03.2021 dismissing I.A. No. 137/2021 filed by him.  The petition was filed to amend the complaint by incorporating a claim for recovery of some additional charges levied and recovered by the bank from the complainant.  It is stated that the additional charges were recovered after the matter had been settled before the Lok Adalath.  The District Commission considered the amendment application and has dismissed the same holding that the petition was vitiated by inordinate delay. 

We have heard the counsel for the petitioner.  It is pointed out by the counsel that the complainant was not aware that the charges had been recovered by the bank without any authority.  It was for the said reason that the petition for amendment had not been filed on an earlier date.  According to the learned counsel, dismissal of the amendment petition on the sole ground of delay has been held to be bad by the National Commission in the decision in Shreya Milind Nimonkar Vs. Dr. Seema Shanbhag and Anr. 2018 3 CPR (NC) 316. 

Though notice has been served on the respondent, there is no appearance.  Therefore, we have heard the counsel for the revision petitioner. 

It is the settled position of law that an amendment is not to be rejected for the sole reason of delay.  In this case the complainant’s case is that he was not aware of the fact that charges had been recovered from him in violation of law.  We find no reason to disbelieve the said submission.  The amendment sought for is only to seek recovery of some additional charges recovered from the complainant.  The above being the position, the revision petitioner is entitled to succeed. 

This revision petition is accordingly allowed.  The order under revision is set aside and I.A. No. 137/2021 in C.C. No. 466/2016 is allowed.  The revision petitioner shall carry out the amendment and proceed with the trial of the complaint, without delay.  The District Commission shall also endeavour to dispose of the complaint on an early date considering the fact that it is a matter that has been pending for a long time.  

JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN  : PRESIDENT

T.S.P. MOOSATH   : JUDICIAL MEMBER

RANJIT. R                : MEMBER

                                                                        BEENA KUMARY. A             : MEMBER

                                                                        K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN            : MEMBER

jb