KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REVISION PETITION No.84/2022
ORDER DATED: 05.12.2022
(Against the Order in C.C.No.192/2022 of DCDRC, Kannur)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN | : | PRESIDENT |
SRI. RANJIT R. | : | MEMBER |
SMT. BEENA KUMARY A. | : | MEMBER |
SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN | : | MEMBER |
REVISION PETITIONER:
| Muneer P., Proprietor, M/s Car Mech Motors, Mini Bypass Road, P.O. Mankave, Calicut – 673 007 |
(by Adv. P.M. Thomas)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
| Haseeb M.P., S/o Mohammed Ali P., M/s Honesty Fashion, Onden Road, Casta Tower, Kannur – 670 001 |
O R D E R
HON’BLE JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN: PRESIDENT
This revision is filed against an order wherein the petitioner is set exparte by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kannur (the District Commission for short). According to the petitioner, notice in the case was received by him on 09.09.2022. He has been set exparte on 10.10.2022, after the expiry of 30 days. It is not in dispute that he had not filed version within the statutory time limit of 30 days.
2. According to the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner, the order of the District Commission is harsh and would result in shutting out completely the contentions of the Revision Petitioner and would deny them the chance to contest the case. Therefore it is submitted that it is necessary to interfere with the said order under revision for the purpose of granting them an opportunity to put forward their case before the District Commission.
3. Heard. It is not in dispute that notice was received by the Revision Petitioner on 09.09.2022. Therefore, the statutory time limit of 30 days stipulated for filing the appeal had expired on 10.10.2022. As per the dictum of the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (2020)5 SCC 757, neither the District Commission nor the State Commission has the power to extend the time limit for filing version beyond the statutorily stipulated time. Therefore, the District Commission was fully justified in declaring the Revision Petitioner exparte. In view of the above, we do not find any error in the order that requires correction in revision.
For the above reasons, this Revision Petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN | : | PRESIDENT |
Sd/- RANJIT R. | : | MEMBER |
Sd/- BEENA KUMARY A. | : | MEMBER |
Sd/- K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN | : | MEMBER |
SL
