Summary Security Force Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Civil Offences Beyond Simple Hurt And Theft: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Vague Allegations Cannot Dissolve a Sacred Marital Relationship: Karnataka High Court Upholds Dismissal of Divorce Petition Daughters Entitled to Coparcenary Rights in Ancestral Property under Hindu Succession Act, 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Divorce | False Allegations of Domestic Violence and Paternity Questions Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madhya Pradesh High Court Hostile Witness Testimony Admissible if Corroborated by Independent Evidence: Punjab and Haryana High Court Fraud Must Be Specifically Pleaded and Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt to Invalidate Registered Documents: Andhra Pradesh High Court Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Rash Driving Conviction But Grants Probation to First-Time Offender Bus Driver Orissa High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment for Husband Convicted of Wife's Murder Merit Cannot Be Sacrificed for Procedural Technicalities in NEET UG Admissions: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Upholds Partition Decrees: Unregistered Partition Deed Inadmissible, Fails to Prove Prior Partition - Joint Hindu Family Property Presumed Undivided: Patna High Court Section 195(1)(b) CrPC | Judicial Integrity Cannot Be Undermined: Supreme Court Restores Evidence Tampering Case In a NDPS Case Readiness and Willingness, Not Time, Decide Equity in Sale Agreements: Supreme Court Denies Specific Performance Prolonged Detention Violates Fundamental Rights Under Article 21: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in Money Laundering Case DV ACT | Economic Abuse Includes Alienation of Assets, Necessitating Protection Orders: Allahabad High Court Illegal Structures to Face Demolition: Bombay HC Directs Strict Action Against Unauthorized Constructions Justice Must Extend to the Last Person Behind Bars: Supreme Court Pushes for Full Implementation of BNSS Section 479 to Relieve Undertrial Prisoners Efficiency Over Central Oversight: Supreme Court Asserts Need for Localized SIT in Chennai Case Partition, Not Injunction, Is Remedy for Joint Property Disputes: P&H High Court Dismisses Plea Subsequent Purchaser Can Question Plaintiff’s Intent: MP High Court Clarifies Specific Relief Act Trademark Pirates Face Legal Wrath: Delhi HC Enforces Radio Mirchi’s IP Rights Swiftly Madras High Court Upholds Extended Adjudication Period Under Customs Act Amid Allegations of Systemic Lapses Disputes Over Religious Office Will Be Consolidated for Efficient Adjudication, Holds Karnataka High Court Motive Alone, Without Corroborative Evidence, Insufficient for Conviction : High Court Acquits Accused in 1993 Murder Case Himachal Pradesh HC Criticizes State for Delays: Orders Timely Action on Employee Grievances Calls for Pragmatic Approach to Desertion and Cruelty in Divorce Cases: Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Trial Juvenile Tried as Adult: Bombay High Court Validates JJB Decision, Modifies Sentence to 7 Years Retrospective Application of Amended Rules for Redeployment Declared Invalid: Orissa High Court NDPS Act Leaves No Room for Leniency: HC Requires Substantial Proof of Innocence for Bail No Protection Without Performance: MP High Court Denies Relief Under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act

Failure to File Version on Time Does Not Mean Failure to Represent: High Court of Kerala in Consumer Disputes

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Court set aside ex-parte orders from the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, allowing the petitioner to participate in proceedings despite delayed submissions.

The High Court of Kerala, in a notable decision, has set aside ex-parte orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) in multiple consumer complaints against NTC Nidhi Ltd. Justice Dr. Kauser Edappagath delivered the judgment on June 11, 2024, emphasizing the petitioner’s right to participate in proceedings even after the statutory period for filing a version had lapsed. This ruling addresses a critical issue in consumer law, balancing procedural compliance with the right to fair representation.

NTC Nidhi Ltd, represented by its branch manager Saritha M., was the petitioner in several connected cases before the DCDRC, Palakkad. The complaints, filed by different respondents including Thishya Rekshit Krishna S. and Shaj B., alleged deficiency of service and sought compensation. NTC Nidhi Ltd filed its version in response to these complaints beyond the statutory deadline, leading the DCDRC to reject the filings and proceed ex-parte. The petitioner subsequently sought to set aside these ex-parte orders, which were also dismissed by the DCDRC, prompting the appeal to the High Court.

Justice Edappagath underscored that while timely filing of the version is essential, the petitioner’s continued representation in the proceedings cannot be ignored. The Court noted, “For the mere reason that the opposite party failed to file the version within time, it cannot be said that they failed to represent the case before the DCDRC.” This distinction was crucial in determining the petitioner's right to participate in the subsequent proceedings.

The Court referred to the Supreme Court decision in ARN Infrastructure India Limited V. Hara Prasad Ghosh, which held that a party’s right to cross-examine and adduce evidence remains intact despite procedural lapses. Additionally, the High Court cited the ruling in Saint Gobian India Pvt. Ltd V. Deepak Achuthan, reinforcing that procedural defaults should not preclude substantive justice.

The legal reasoning in the judgment focused on ensuring that the principles of natural justice are upheld. The Court emphasized the necessity for a fair trial, allowing the petitioner to cross-examine witnesses and present evidence. “The DCDRC shall allow the petitioner to take part in the proceedings, adduce evidence, and cross-examine the witnesses of the complaint,” stated Justice Edappagath. This approach ensures that procedural defaults do not result in an automatic forfeiture of the right to a fair hearing.

Justice Edappagath remarked, “Even if a party fails to file a version, as long as they continue to represent their case in any manner, they cannot be subjected to an ex-parte order under the statute.” This statement highlights the Court’s commitment to fair representation over procedural rigidity.

The High Court’s ruling has significant implications for consumer law and procedural fairness. By setting aside the ex-parte orders and allowing the petitioner to participate in the proceedings, the Court has reinforced the principle that justice should not be sacrificed at the altar of procedural technicalities. This decision is expected to influence how consumer disputes are handled, ensuring that both parties have an equitable opportunity to present their case.

 

Date of Decision: June 11, 2024

NTC Nidhi Ltd vs. Thishya Rekshit Krishna S and Others

Similar News