STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/A/468/2023 null ONE MOBIWIK SYSTEMS PVT LTD PRESENT ADDRESS - UNIT 102 BLOCK B GOLF COURSE ROAD DLF PHASE 5 SECTOR 53 GURUGRAM HARYANA ,KERALA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus VEENA G PRADEEP PRESENT ADDRESS - VADAKKANTHARA MAIN ROAD VADAKKANTHARA PALAKKAD

678012 ,KERALA. .......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR , PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. SRI.AJITH KUMAR.D , JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN.K.R , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

NEMO FOR THE RESPONDENT:

NEMO DATED: INVALID DATETIME

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No. 468/2023 JUDGEMENT DATED :10.03.2025 (Against the order in C.C. No.197/2022 on the files of DCDRC, Palakkad)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA : PRESIDENT KUMAR SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER APPELLANT:

One MobiKwik Systems Ltd., through its Authorised Representative, having registered office at Unit 102, First Floor, Block B, Pegasus One, Golf Course Road, Sector 53, Gurugram, Haryana - 122 003 (by Adv. Athul M.V.)

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Veena G. Pradeep, D/o Pradeep Gopalakrishnan, A1, Anugraha Main Road, Vadakkanthara, Palakkad - 678 012

JUDGEMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT The appellant is the first opposite party in C.C. No.197/2022 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Palakkad (for short, ‘the District Commission’). The respondent herein is the complainant before the District Commission.

2. The complainant filed a complaint against the opposite parties alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

3. Notice was issued to the first opposite party by the District Commission and the said notice was not returned after the service. In the said circumstances, the counsel for the complainant filed a memo before the District Commission stating that the address of the first opposite party in the website and the complaint is the same. Therefore, the presumption under proviso to Section 65(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, was taken by the District Commission regarding the service of notice. Thereafter, since no version was filed by the first opposite party, the District Commission set the first opposite party ex-parte on 09.12.2022. So, the complainant filed proof affidavit. Exhibits A1 to A6 were also marked for the complainant. The District Commission relied on the proof affidavit and Exhibits A1 to A6 and allowed the complaint, directing the first opposite party to refund Rs. 8,939/- (Rupees Eight Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty Nine only) along with interest to the complainant.

The first opposite party was also directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as costs.

4. Service is complete. However, there is no representation for the respondent.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Perused the records.

6. It appears from the records that the notice was issued to the first opposite party by the District Commission on 03.11.2022. Thereafter, on 09.12.2022, the District Commission set the first opposite party ex-parte, invoking proviso to Section 65(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The learned counsel for the first opposite party has submitted that the first opposite party was not granted the statutory period for filing the version and hence, serious prejudice was caused to the first opposite party.

7. It appears that the notice issued to the first opposite party was not returned. It is seen that the notice was sent on 03.11.2022. A presumption under proviso to Section 65(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, could be taken only after a period of 30 days from the date of sending the notice. Therefore, the presumption in this case could have been taken after a period of 30 days from 03.11.2022. Thus, the presumption in this case could have been taken only after 02.12.20