KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REVISION PETITION No. 08/2022
ORDER DATED: 01.10.2024
(Against the Order in I.A. 413/21 in C.C. 317/21 of DCDRC, Thrissur)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
REVISION PETITIONERS:
- Manager (AGM), Malayalam Motors Pvt. Ltd., NH 47, Bypass Road, Marathakkara, Thrissur-680 306.
- Managing Director, Malayalam Motors Pvt. Ltd., 9, 15/539, NH 47, (Opp) Milma, Koonamthai, Edappally, North Kochi-682 024.
(By Adv. D.R. Rajesh)
-
RESPONDENT:
Aneesh, S/o Meledathveettil Aravindakshan, Pokkulangara West, Engandiyoor Village, Thrissur-680 615.
ORDER
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
The revision petitioners are the opposite parties in C.C. No. 317/2021 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur (“the District Commission” for short).
2. The respondent filed a complaint against the revision petitioners alleging deficiency in service. Notice was issued to the revision petitioners. However, the revision petitioners were absent on 30.10.2021. In the said circumstances, the revision petitioners were called absent and set ex-parte by the District Commission, against which the revision petitioners filed I.A. No. 413/2021 before the District Commission. The said I.A. was also dismissed by the District Commission. Aggrieved by the order setting the revision petitioners ex-parte, this revision petition has been filed.
3. Service is complete. However, there is no appearance for the respondent.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and perused the records.
5. It is contended by the revision petitioners that even though the notice was served, the Manager who received the notice, resigned from the company and hence the case files could not be entrusted with the advocate concerned on time. Consequently, there was no representation before the District Commission on 30.10.2021, when the case was called. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners has submitted that during the above said period, most of the courts were not functioning properly and the movements were also restricted, due to the wide spread of Covid-19 pandemic.
6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, reported in 2022(1)KHC 240, held that the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 must be excluded for the purpose of calculating the period of limitation, due to the wide spread of Covid-19 pandemic. Admittedly, the revision petitioners were set ex-parte on 30.10.2021, at the time when the human life was affected adversely by the wide spread of Covid-19 pandemic.
7. Having gone through the contentions of the revision petitioners, in the light of the argument of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, we are of the view that there was sufficient cause for the non-representation of the revision petitioners before the District Commission on 30.10.2021 and consequently, it is only just and proper to grant one more opportunity to the revision petitioners to contest the matter on merits. For the said reason, the order dated 30.10.2021 passed by the District Commission setting the revision petitioners ex-parte stands set aside.
In the result, this revision stands allowed and the order dated 30.10.2021 passed by the District Commission, setting the revision petitioners ex-parte, stands set aside.
JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR: PRESIDENT
AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
jb RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
