STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA REVISION PETITION NO. SC/32/RP/72/2024 null MOHAMMED SHAREEF PRESENT ADDRESS - BELLOORADDKA HOUSE EDNEER POST PADY VILLAGE KASARGOD

671123 ,KERALA.

.......Petitioner(s)

Versus THE MANAGER M/S PRAVEEN CAPITAL PVT LTD PRESENT ADDRESS - SHRI GANESH COMPLEX MAIN ROAD DARBE PUTTUR D K KARNATAKA 574202 ,KERALA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR , PRESIDENT FOR THE PETITIONER:

MOHAMMED SHAREEF , N G MAHESH (Advocate)

FOR THE RESPONDENT:

THE MANAGER M/S PRAVEEN CAPITAL PVT LTD, In-Person DATED: INVALID DATETIME

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REVISION PETITION No. 72/2024 ORDER DATED: 21.03.2025 (Against the Order in I.A. No. 223/2024 in C.C. 59/2024 of DCDRC, Kasaragod)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER REVISION PETITIONER:

Mohammed Shereef B., S/o Aboobacker, residing at Bellooradka House, Edneer Post, Pady Village, Kasaragod District-671 123.

(By Adv. M. Mohanan Nambiar, Adv. N.G. Mahesh and Adv. Sheeba Sivadasan)

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

The Manager, M/s Praveen Capital Pvt. Ltd., Shri Ganesh Complex, Main Road, Darbe, Puttur, D.K., Karnataka-574 202.

ORDER

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT The revision petitioner is the complainant in C.C. No. 59/2024 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kasaragod (for short, ‘the District Commission’), who in this revision petition challenges the order dated 08.10.2024 passed by the District Commission, accepting the version filed by the opposite party on payment of costs.

2. Heard both sides. Perused the records.

3. It appears from the records that the notice was served on the opposite party on 27.03.2024. It further appears from the records that the version was filed by the opposite party only on 01.08.2024, which was beyond the period stipulated under Sec.

38(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

4. The Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (P) Ltd., reported in 2020 (5)SCC 757 : 2020 (2) KHC 274, held that the District Commission has no power to extend the time for filing the response to the complaint beyond the period of 15 days in addition to 30 days as is envisaged under S.13 of the Consumer Protection Act; and the commencing point of limitation of 30 days under S.13 of the Consumer Protection Act would be from the date of receipt of the notice accompanied with the complaint by the opposite party, and not mere receipt of the notice of the complaint.

5. The law is settled by the decision in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (P) Ltd. (supra) that the District Commission has no power to extend the time for filing the response to the complaint beyond the period of 15 days in addition to 30 days as is envisaged under S.13 of the Consumer Protection Act. It is further settled that the commencing point of limitation of 30 days under S.13 of the Consumer Protection Act would be from the date of receipt of the notice accompanied with the complaint by the opposite party, and not mere receipt of the notice of the complaint. It is true that the above decision was rendered by the Apex Court on the basis of the provisions envisaged under S.13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Since S. 38 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, is pari materia with the provisions of S.13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the above decision is applicable to the cases filed after the enactment of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as well.

6. As per Section 38(2)(a), the revision petitioner had every right to file written version within 30 days or the extended period of 15 days. In this case, the notice accompanied with the complaint was received by the revision petitioner on 27.03.2024. However, the version was filed by the revision petitioner only on 01.08.2024, which was ad