Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

RP/36/2024

M/S GRR LOGISTICSPRIVATE LIMITED, REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. RADHAKRISHNAN & MR RANJITH KUMAR DIRECTOR - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S L.G. BALAKRISHNAN & BROS LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

THOMAS T JACOB-REV.PTNR

29 Jul 2024

ORDER

IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI - 3.

 

Present: Hon’ble Thiru Justice R. SUBBIAH  ... PRESIDENT

    

Revision Petition No.36 of 2024

 

[(Against the Order dated 28.02.2024 passed in C.C. No.431/2023 on the file of the DCDRC, Coimbatore]

 

                                                          Orders dated:29.07.2024

 

M/s. GRR Logistics Pvt. Ltd.,

85, GNT Road, Madhavaram,

Ponniammanmedu, Chennai – 600 110.

(Rep. by its Managing Direction Mr. Radhakrishnan &

Mr. Ranjith Kumar, Director). … Revision Petitioner/1^st Opposite Party.

- Versus –

1.M/s. L.G. Balakrishnan & Bros Ltd.,

No.6/16/613, Krishnapuram Road,

Ganapathy, Coimbatore – 641 006.   …  1^st Respondent / Complainant.

 

2. M/s. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited,

Raagavis Centre, 1^st & 2^nd Floor,

21A, Nethaji Nagar, Nanjundapuram Main Road,

Ramanathapuram, Coimbatore – 641 045.

(Rep. by Mr. Ganesh, Manager, Coimbatore Branch).

 

3. M/s. INTECH Insurance Surveyors & Loss Assessors Pvt. Ltd.,

No.17, First Street, Santham Colony,

Anna Nagar, West Extension, Chennai – 600 101.

(Rep. by Mrs. S.P. Vallikannu, Authorised Signatory).

 

4. M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited,

Rep. by its Branch Manager,

Old No.66/New No.153, 1^st Floor, Wall Tax Road,

Chennai – 600 001.

5. M/s. Comtech Surveyors

Rep. by N. Veeraraghavan,

No.3, 1^st Street, Sai Sudarshan, II Floor,

North Gopalapuram,

Chennai – 600 086.   .. Respondents 2 to 5 / Opposite parties 2 to 5.

 

Counsel for Revision Petitioner /

1^st Opposite party                           : M/s. Thomas T Jacob.

Counsel for the 2^nd Respondent/

2^nd Respondent                               : Mr. N. Somasundaar.

Respondents 1, 4 & 5                      : Served called absent

 

            This Revision Petition is listed today and, after hearing the arguments of the counsel for the Revision Petitioner and the counsel for the 2^nd Respondent and upon perusing the materials on record, this Commission passes the following:-

 

O R D E R

 

R.Subbiah, J. – President  (Open Court)

 

 

This Revision Petition is filed against the Order dated 28.02.2024 passed by the DCDRC, Coimbatore in C.C. No.431 of 2023, whereby, the Revision Petitioner/ 1^st Opposite party was set exparte by the District Commission for non-filing of written version within the statutory period.

 

2.     Against the order dt.28.02.2024, the present Revision Petition has been preferred by the Revision Petitioner / 1^st Opposite party with a prayer to set aside the order dt.28.02.2024 passed in C.C. No.431/2023 and permit them to file written version before the DCDRC, Coimbatore.

3. The learned counsel for the 2^nd Respondent submitted that the reasons stated by the revision petitioner that the delay had been occurred only due to engage an advocate to represent their case.  The Revision Petitioner / 1^st Opposite party deliberately remained absent and failed to file their written version.  Hence, this Revision Petition has to be dismissed. 

4.     It is appropriate to refer the Section 47 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and it is re- produced hereunder,

“to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any District Commission within the State, where it appears to the State Commission that such District Commission has

exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law,

        or

has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested

 or

has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity”

 

From the above, it is crystal clear that only upon three contingencies this Commission has got power to revise the order of the District Commission.

 

5. Further, this Commission came to understand that even though the revision petitioner/ 1^st opposite party received summons they did not appear and file their written version within the statutory period of 45 days.  Hence, the revision petitioner/ 1^st opposite party was set ex-parte before the District Commission.

6.     Now the question to set aside the ex-parte order by the Consumer Commission is well settled by the Honourable Supreme Court of India - in Civil Appeal No.10941 – 10942/  2013 dated 04.03.2020 in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited –Vs- Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited - In the above case the Apex Court is categorically held that the District Commission has no power to extend the time for filing response to the complaint beyond the period of 15 days in addition to 30 days as is envisaged u/s 13 (1) (a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now replaced by section 38 (2) (a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019). Therefore, the Honorable Apex Court categorically held that the Consumer Fora and State Commission have not been empowered to extend the statutory time limit for filing written version by the opposite party and also have not been empowered to set aside their ex-parte order passed by the Consumer Commission. So the District Commission, Coimbatore did not commit error in exercising its jurisdiction and hence the same cannot be interfered by this Commission.  Hence, the Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable without cost.

In the result, this Revision Petition is dismissed as not maintainable.   No costs.

 

                                                                                              

                                                                              R.SUBBIAH

                                                                               PRESIDENT

 

 

 KIR/TNSCDRC/Chennai/Orders/July/2024.