KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION No. 11/2018

ORDER DATED: 30.09.2019

(Against the Order in C.C. 23/2017 of CDRF, Pathanamthitta)

PRESENT:

SRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH                                                                   : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI. RANJIT. R                                                                              : MEMBER

REVISION PETITIONER:

Rathish Kumar, Proprietor, Mobile Planet, Chit Chat Arcade, M.C. Road, Ramanchira, Thiruvalla.

                             (By Adv. Sony. A)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Abraham P.J, Padinjarettil House, Madathumnagom Post, Puramattom, Thiruvalla.

ORDER

SRI. RANJIT. R: MEMBER

Revision is filed by the opposite party against the common order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pathanamthitta in I.A. Nos. 09/2018 and 10/2018 in C.C. No. 23/2017 dated 23.01.2018 whereby the District Forum dismissed both the I.As.  Opposite parties have filed I.A 09/2018 for condoning the delay of 204 days in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte order and I.A 10/2018 to set aside the ex-parte order dated 02.05.2017.  In I.A 09/2018 the petitioner has contended that he did not receive the notice from the Forum and did not know that they were set exparte on 02.05.2017 and they got knowledge of the case only on 16.01.2018 when the revision petitioner happened to appear in another case before the Forum. 

2.  The Forum found that the revision petitioner received the notice from the Forum on 27.02.2017 itself and therefore dismissed the I.A for condoning the delay of 204 days.  In I.A 10/2018 the Forum held that there is no provision in the Consumer Protection Act which empowers the Forum to set aside the exparte order and hence the above I.A was dismissed and proceed with the complaint treating the revision petitioner as ex-parte.  The challenge in the revision is against these orders.

3.  Even though notice was served on the respondent/complainant he did not appear.

4.  We heard the revision petitioner and perused the common order in the revision.  The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner has no knowledge about the case on 27.02.2017 as an employee in the office of the petitioner has received the summons and thereafter it was misplaced somewhere in the office and failed to inform the revision petitioner in time and he came to know about the case only on 16.01.2018 when he went to the Forum to appear in another case.  He further contended that the District Forum ought to have given an opportunity to the revision petitioner to contest the case on merit and by dismissing the petitions the District Forum has violated the principle of natural justice and prayed for setting aside the order of the District forum. 

5.  The learned counsel further contended that the lower forum in I.A 10/2018 failed to distinguish between the concept of final order and interim order and should have found that setting aside the exparte orders are not legally allowable only in case of final orders and not against interim orders.  The Forum failed to appreciate the ruling of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Lucknow Government Authority Vs. Shyam Kumar and also the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Hitendra Pa