KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION No.78/2022

ORDER DATED: 05.12.2022

(Against the Order in C.C.No.69/2022 of DCDRC, Idukki)

PRESENT:

REVISION PETITIONER/OPPOSITE PARTY:

(by Adv. C.R. Sureshkumar)

Vs.

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

O R D E R

HON’BLE JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN: PRESIDENT

          Revision Petitioner is the opposite party in C.C.No.69/22 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Idukki (District Commission for short).  The Revision Petitioner entered appearance before the District Commission on 30.05.22, with their counsel filing vakalath on their behalf.  Thereafter, the case stood posted to 04.07.22.  On the said date the Revision Petitioner was set exparte, since there was no representation.  On 11.07.22, the version of the Revision Petitioner was filed along with a petition, I.A.No.01/22 for receiving the version and setting aside the order declaring the Revision Petitioner exparte.  The said petition has been dismissed by the District Commission.  This revision is filed against the said order.

          2.       According to the counsel for the revision petitioner, it was due to an omission to note the posting date of 04.07.22 that there was no representation for the Revision Petitioner when the case was called before the District Commission.  Immediately thereafter the version was filed on 11.07.22 along with a petition to receive the version and to set aside the order declaring them exparte.  It is submitted that, the District Commission ought to have allowed the petition and given the Revision Petitioner an opportunity to contest the complaint.  The order dismissing their petition is therefore submitted to be without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. 

          3.       Heard.  Even according to the counsel for the Revision Petitioner, they had entered appearance through counsel on 30.05.22.  Therefore, the statutory time limit of 30 days for filing their version expired on 30.06.22.  The said period could have been extended by 15 days by the District Commission.  However, admittedly no such extension was granted.  The version has admittedly been filed only on 11.07.22 long after the expiry of the statutory time limit.  As per the dictum laid down by the Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.(2020)5 SCC 757, the time limit stipulated by the statute for filing version cannot be extended by the District Commission or the State Commission under any circumstances.  Therefore, the District Commission had no option other than to dismiss I.A.No.1/22 filed by the petitioner.  Since the District Commission has rightly dismissed the petition filed by the Revision Petitioner, we find no grounds to admit this Revision Petition.

          For the above reasons, this Revision Petition is dismissed.  No costs.

SL