KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION No. 92/2023

ORDER DATED: 18.12.2023

(Against the Order in I.A. No. 1282/2022 in C.C. 90/2022 of CDRC, Thrissur)

PRESENT:

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

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.                                                    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                        : MEMBER

REVISION PETITIONER:

Service Manager, Mechatron TATA, TATA Passenger Car Service Centre, NH 66, Near Kinfra, Kuttipuram, Malappuram-671 571.

            (By Advs. Abdul Shukkur Arakkal & Manu Mohan Charummood)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Nilshad P.A., S/o Abdul Kareem, Pulinthara Parambil (H), Deepthi Nagar, Civil Lane Road, Poothole P.O., Thrissur – 680 004.

2. Hyson Motors Pvt. Ltd., represented by its General Manager, Hyson Motors Pvt. Ltd., Puzhakkalpadam, Guruvayur Road, Poonkunnam P.O., Thrissur – 680 002.

3. TATA Motors represented by its General Manager, TATA Motors, 3^rd Floor, Tutus Tower, Bypass Road, Padivattam, Ernakulam-682 001.

ORDER

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

The revision petitioner is the 2^nd opposite party in C.C. No. 90/2022 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur (District Commission for short).  The revision petitioner did not file his version within the statutory time limit and they had been declared ex-parte.  Thereupon he filed I.A. No. 1282/2022 for setting aside the order declaring him exparte.  The said petition has also been dismissed by an order dated 26.06.2023.  Aggrieved by the said order he has filed this revision petition.

2.  According to the counsel for the revision petitioner, though no version has been filed within the statutory time limit the revision petitioner is entitled to be heard before the complaint is finally disposed of. 

3.  In view of the 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 where an opposite party fails to file version within the statutory time limit, the proper course to be adopted by the District Commission is to declare the opposite party ex-parte and to proceed to finally dispose of the complaint on the basis of the evidence produced by the complainant.  It is the said procedure that has been adopted by the District Commission in this case.  Therefore, we find no infirmity in the order that is sought to be revised.  In view of the above, we find no grounds to admit this revision or to grant any of the reliefs sought for by the revision petitioner.  This revision is therefore dismissed.  However, the dismissal of the revision petition shall be without prejudice to the rights of the revision petitioner to be heard before the complaint is finally disposed of by the District Commission.

JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN  : PRESIDENT

                                      AJITH KUMAR D.: JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                                                                 RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER

jb