ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REVISION PETITION No. 01/2026 ORDER DATED: 23.03.2026 (Against the Order in C.C. 366/2025 of DCDRC, Pathanamthitta)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT

SRI. K.R.RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER

REVISION PETITIONER:

Sreejith Sadananthan, Proprietor, Team Xpert-Painting Solutions, Peedikayil House, Pallom P.O., Kottayam-686 007 (By Adv. S. Reghukumar, Adv. Threya J. Pillai and Adv. Jwala K.P)

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Asish Ravi Koshy, Puthenpurackal House, Manjanikkara, Mathoor P.O., Pathanamthitta

ORDER

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT

1. The revision petitioner is the opposite party in C.C.No.366/2025 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pathanamthitta (for short, ‘the District Commission’).

2. The District Commission as per order dated 30.12.2025 set the revision petitioner ex-parte on the reason that the revision petitioner did not file the version till that date. Against the said order, this revision petition has been filed.

3. Heard. Perused the records.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the revision petition.

5. It is borne out from the records that the notice to the opposite party was served on 15.11.2025. It appears that the opposite party was set ex-parte on 30.12.2025, which was on the 45th day of service of notice on the opposite party. As per S.38(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the opposite party had the right to file written version within 30 days or the extended period not exceeding 15 days. The National Commission in Branch Manager, Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Minati Dei and another (Revision Petition No.1947/2019) held in paragraph 14 as hereinbelow: -

“In the present case, the Petitioner/OP1 received the notice before the District Forum on 13.07.2015. The prescribed period of limitation for filing the Written Version is 30+15 days under Section 13(1)(a) of the Act. The prescribed limitation for filing the Written Version lapsed on 26.08.2015. However, the learned District Forum proceeded ex-parte against the Petitioner on 28.07.2015 itself. The Petitioner entered appearance and sought to set aside the ex-parte order and to file the written version on 31.07.2015, which was still within the permissible period. Therefore, clearly the District Forum order dated 28.07.2015 to proceed ex-parte against Petitioner before the expiry of prescribed period for filing written version is premature”.

6. It is true that the above decision was rendered by the National Commission on the basis of the provisions under S. 13(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Since S. 38 (2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, is pari materia with the provisions of S. 13(1)(a) 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.

7. In view of the above decision of the National Commission, it is clear that the District Commission had no authority to set the revision petitioner ex-parte before the expiry of 45 days from the date of service of notice on the revision petitioner/opposite party. In this case, the revision petitioner was set ex-parte on the 45 th day of service of notice on the revision petitioner. Since the revision petitioner/opposite party was set ex-parte within the statutory period as provided under Section 38(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, there can be no doubt that the order dated 30.12.2025 passed by the District Commission setting the opposite party ex-parte cannot be sustained.

In the result, this revision petition stands allowed and order dated 30.12.2025 setting the revision petitioner ex-parte stands set aside. The revision petitioner shall have the liberty to file the written version within the statutory period. Needless to state that