KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
I.A. No. 805/2023 in APPEAL No. 78/2023
ORDER DATED: 01.08.2023
(Against the Order in C.C. 66/2021 of CDRC, Kollam)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
PETITIONER/APPELLANT:
V. Hareesh Kumar, Managing Director, Powertek Enterprises, Desasevini Junction, Pattazhi P.O., Kollam.
(By Adv. Suneetha V.)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
Rajesh V., S/o Vijayan, Kalvelil P.O., Ezhukone (via), Kottarakkara, Kollam-691 505.
(By Adv. Dinesh Sajan K.)
ORDER
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
This is an application filed by the opposite party in C.C. No. 66 of 2021 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kollam (District Commission in short). On 30.09.2022 the District Commission had allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to take back the defective machinery and replace it with a new one within 45 days. Direction was also issued to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards financial loss, Rs. 25,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- as costs. He was ordered to pay the cost of the machinery with interest at the rate of 9% per annum in the event the machinery was not replaced as directed.
2. Aggrieved by the above order the petitioner had filed an appeal. While preferring the appeal a delay of 133 days occurred. This application is for condonation of the above delay.
3. Respondent entered appearance and filed counter that the petitioner never appeared before the District Commission and filed version though served with notice. According to him there is no satisfactory reason for allowing the petition.
4. Heard both sides. Perused the case records.
5. On going through the order passed by the District Commission it is seen that the petitioner remained ex-parte though he was served with notice. It is not possible for the petitioner to contest the matter on merits in view of the judicial interpretation given by the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (2020)5 SCC 757. As per the settled position it is declared that if an opposite party fails to file version within 45 days from the date of receipt of the notice the District Commission cannot receive the version. Since the petitioner failed to file the version within the stipulated period no purpose will be served in admitting the appeal. So also no useful purpose will be served in condoning the delay.
In the result, the petition is dismissed.
JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
jb
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 78/2023
JUDGMENT DATED: 01.08.2023
(Against the Order in C.C. 66/2021 of CDRC, Kollam)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
APPELLANT:
V. Hareesh Kumar, Managing Director, Powertek Enterprises, Desasevini Junction, Pattazhi P.O., Kollam.
(By Adv. Suneetha V.)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
Rajesh V., S/o Vijayan, Kalvelil P.O., Ezhukone (via), Kottarakkara, Kollam-691 505.
(By Adv. Dinesh Sajan K.)
JUDGMENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
The appeal has been filed after elapsing the period prescribed. The petition filed as I.A. No 805/2023 for the condonation of delay stands dismissed. So the appeal is also dismissed.
The statutory deposit made by the appellant at the time of filing the appeal is ordered to be refunded on proper acknowledgment.
JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
jb
