STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA REVIEW APPLICATION NO. SC/32/RA/8/2024 IN SC/32/A/16/702 THE MANAGER INDUS MOTORS CO LTD PRESENT ADDRESS - DOOR NO VI/366 AND 367 NH 47 KOOTTUPATHA PALAKKAD PIN

678007NCDRC,KERALA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus N S LAKSHMANAN PRESENT ADDRESS - NOCHUR VILLAGE KODUVAYUR POST CHITTUR TALUK PALAKKADNCDRC,KERALA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR , PRESIDENT 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 REVIEW APPLICATION No.08/2024 in APPEAL No.702/2016 ORDER DATED: 20.01.2025 HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA : PRESIDENT KUMAR SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT:

The Manager, Indus Motors Company Pvt. Ltd., Door No.VI/366 &

367, NH 47 Koottupatha, Palakkad – 678 007 (by Adv. Suresh Kumar C.R.)

Vs.

N.S. Lakshmanan, S/o N.L. Sundaran, Nochur Village, Koduvayur

Post, Chittur Taluk, Palakkad

O R D E R

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

This is a petition filed under Section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to restore the appeal which was dismissed as per the order dated 18.01.2024.

2. The revision petitioner would allege that the appeal was preferred in a haste and hence the relief portion was overlooked. On noticing the defect, an amendment petition was filed which was found missing from the Court. So a new petition for amendment was also filed by the petitioner on 01.06.2023. On 14.01.2024 the matter came up for hearing and subsequently adjourned to 16.01.2024 and later to 18.01.2024. But there was no updation in the confonet on 17.01.2024. Hence, the counsel could not appear and accordingly the appeal was dismissed. Therefore, the petitioner would seek for the review of the order by setting aside the dismissal of the petition.

3. The respondent entered appearance on receipt of notice.

4. Heard both sides. Perused the affidavit.

5. Section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act is sought to be invoked for setting aside the dismissal of the appeal and to restore the appeal on file. The Consumer Protection Act does not provide any authority to the State Commission to set aside an order of dismissal and to restore an appeal which was dismissed for default. In 2019 Act such a power is only granted to the National Commission. When the statute does not permit restoration of a case which was dismissed for default, such a course cannot be indirectly implemented by invoking the power to review. Since this Commission has no authority to restore an appeal which was dismissed for default, the request for review is only to be dismissed.

In the result, the review application is dismissed. Parties shall bear their respective costs.

JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA : PRESIDENT KUMAR AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER SL ..................

SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR ..................J SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN.K.R MEMBER