KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REVISION PETITION No. 70/2022
ORDER DATED: 12.12.2022
(Against the Order in C.C. 173/2018 of CDRC, Ernakulam)
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. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
REVISION PETITIONER:
Arya Bhangy Motors, Near Kothakulangara Temple, NH 47, Angamaly-683 572 represented by its Managing Director.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
Aravind John, Pulikkayathu House, Athani P.O., Nedumbassery, Ernakulam-683 585.
ORDER
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
The opposite party in C.C. No. 173/2018 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (District Commission for short) is the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 23.07.2022 in I.A. No. 222/2020. The said I.A. was filed on behalf of the revision petitioner with a prayer to accept the version filed on behalf of the opposite party on 21.10.2020. According to the petitioner, though the version was prepared and entrusted to their earlier Customer Manager, it was not filed due to an inadvertent omission. According to them, if the version was not received it would cause irreparable loss and injury to them.
2. The petition was opposed by the complainant/respondent in the petition pointing out that no version was filed within the statutory period fixed for filing the same. Therefore it was not possible to accept the version.
3. The District Commission verified the records and found that the opposite party had entered appearance in the complaint after receipt of notice on 23.05.2018. The opposite party was directed to file version within 30 days and the case was posted to 12.07.2018. The version was filed only on 21.10.2020. It was clear from the above dates that no version was filed within the statutory time limit. Therefore, the I.A. has been dismissed.
4. According to the revision petitioner, the order of the District Commission is wrong and is therefore liable to be set aside. It is contended that the omission to file version was neither deliberate nor intentional. Therefore, it is contended that it is necessary to set aside the order refusing to accept the version and an opportunity be provided to the revision petitioner to contest the complaint.
5. Heard the counsel for the revision petitioner. 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 revision petitioner. 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 this case admittedly no such extension was granted. The time limit expired on the expiry of 30 days from the date on which notice was received by the opposite party, which was on 23.05.2018. It was long after the statutory time limit had expired that the version in this case has been filed. Therefore the District Commission was right in rejecting the version. We find no error of jurisdiction or infirmity in the order of the District Commission warranting an interference with the same in revision. This revision is therefore dismissed. No costs.
JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
T.S.P. MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER
RANJIT. R : MEMBER
BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
jb