KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 599/2022

JUDGMENT DATED: 12.12.2022

(Against the Order in C.C. 365/2021 of CDRF, Malappuram)

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

APPELLANT:

Authorized Service Centre, ICON Technologies, 26/183-Complex, Naduvilangadi, Tirur-7, Malappuram-676 510.

                       (By Adv. Ramya C.T.)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Firoz Muhammed, represented by Father, Muhammed Aalungal, Aalungal House, Near Keezhmuri Masjid, Randhathani P.O, Tirur, Malappuram-676 310.

2. Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd., Block E, Embassy Tech Village, Devara Beesana Halli, Maratha Halli, Sarjapur, Outer Ringer Road, Bangalore, Karnataka-560 103.

JUDGMENT

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

The appellant is the 2^nd opposite party in C.C. No. 365/2021 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Malappuram (District Commission for short).  According to the appellant, the appellant had entered appearance before the District Commission on receipt of notice and had requested for being served with the copies of the documents produced by the complainant.  It is stated that no copies were furnished to the appellant.  Therefore it is contended that the action of the District Commission in setting the appellant ex-parte and proceeding to finally dispose of the complaint was unjustified and is liable to be set aside in appeal. 

2.  This appeal comes up before us for admission.  We have heard the counsel for the appellant.  We have also perused the order of the District Commission against which this appeal is filed.  What is stated in the order is that on admission of the complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties and notice was served on them.  But, they did not appear.  Therefore, they were set ex-parte.  It was incumbent on the appellant and the other opposite parties in the complaint to have filed their written version within the statutory time limit of 30 days from the date on which they received notice.  The appellant and the other opposite parties were set ex-parte because no version was filed.  The District Commission had proceeded to finally dispose of the complaint ex-parte on the basis of the evidence produced by the complainant. 

3.  In view of the authoritative dictum laid down by 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 procedure adopted by the District Commission cannot be found fault with.  It has been held by the Constitution Bench that where an opposite party omits to file version within the statutory time limit of 30 days or within the time if any extended by the District Commission, the matter has to be proceeded with on the basis of the evidence produced by the complainant, after declaring the opposite party ex-parte.  The above being the position, no purpose will be served in admitting this appeal.  Therefore, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 

In the result, this appeal is dismissed.  No costs. 

The amount of statutory deposit remitted shall be refunded to the appellant, on proper acknowledgment.

JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN  : PRESIDENT

                                  T.S.P. MOOSATH  : JUDICIAL MEMBER

              RANJIT. R                : MEMBER

                                                                                             BEENA KUMARY. A         : MEMBER

                                                                                           RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER  

jb