PER Mr. A. Z. KHWAJA JUDICIAL MEMBER.
Petitioner Nos.1 & 2 have preferred the present Revision Petition challenging the order dated 20/5/2022 passed by the learned Additional District Consumer Commission, Nagpur in Consumer Complaint No.CC/22/4 whereby the application filed by the Petitioner/Opposite party for grant of time to file written version came to be rejected.
Short facts leading the filing of Revision Petition may be stated as under..
Respondent/complainant Anil Zamarkar had filed a Consumer complaint against the Petitioner M/s Revati Associates and Infrastructure alleging deficiency in service as well as Unfair Trade Practice under Consumer Protection Act,1986.
After filing of the Consumer Complint, due notice was issued to the Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 (Petitioner Nos.1 & 2) and the same was also duly received by the Opposite parties/petitioners. The Opposite party was unable to file the written version within the stipulated period and, therefore, after stipulated period, the OP Nos.1 & 2 filed application on 20/5/2022 for grant of further time to file written version on the ground that due to Covid-19, Pandemic they were unable to file written version on record. But this application for grant of time to file written version came to be rejected by the order dated 20/5/2022 by the learned Additional District Consumer Commission, Nagpur and so, the present petitioners have come up in the present Revision.
After filing of Revision Petition, notice was issued to the Respondent/complainant and Adv.Mishrikotkar appeared on behalf of the Respondent/complainant.
We have heard Shri.Ritesh Badhe, learned advocate appearing for the Petitioner Nos.1 & 2 and Adv.Mishrikotkar for the Respondent. It is submitted by Shri.Badhe, learned advocate for the Petitioner that though the petitioners had received the copy of the notice of Consumer complaint, they were unable to file the written version within the stipulated period as they were prevented from doing so due to Covid-19 pandemic. Further it is submitted by the learned advocate for the Petitioners that no proper Opportunity of hearing was granted to the Petitioners/OP No.1&2. According to Shri.Badhe, learned advocate for th Petitioners, in case due opportunity of filing written version is not granted then serious prejudice is likely to be caused to the petitioner and so, it is necessary to set aside the order dated 20/5/2022 and it is necessary to grant time to the Petitioner to file the written version on record.
Shri.Mishrikotkar, learned advocate for the Respondent has strongly opposed the said submissions and has also submitted that the Revision Petition itself is not maintainable in law as ample opportunity was granted to the Petitioner/OP Nos.1 & 2 to file the written version, but the same was not availed by the petitioners. In order to support this contention, Shri.Mishrikotkar, learned advocate for the Respondent has drawn our attention to not only the copy of the application filed by the Petitioners but also to the fact that after receipt of the notice and copy of the complaint, a period of 71 days has already elapsed. It is submitted by Shri.Mishrikotkar, learned advocate for the Respondent that after receipt of the copy of the complaint, it was mandatory on the part of Opposite party Nos.1 & 2 to file the written version within a period of 45 days and there was no discretion available to the Opposite party. On this aspect, he has heavily relied upon one judgement of Constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Hilli multipurpose Cold Storage (P) Ltd. (2015)16 SCC20. Further, Shri.Mishrikotkar, learned advocate for the Complainant pointed out that admittedly, the copy of the notice was received by the Opposite party on 9/3/2022 and so, the Opposite party/Petitioner ought to have filed the written version on or before 22/4/2022, but the present petitioner instead of filing written version on record filed the application on 20/5/2022 which was beyond the period of 45 days.
We have, therefore, carefully gone through the copy of the application as well as the impugned order dated 20/5/2022. There is no serious dispute that the copy of the notice was duly received by the Opposite party on 9/3/2022 and so the Opposite party ought to have filed the written version on or before 22/4/2022. We have also gone through the judgement of Constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Vs. Hilly multipurpose (cited supra) and more particularly Para No.41 of the said judgement, wherein it has been observed that the District Consumer Commission has no power to extend the time for filing the response to the complaint beyond the stipulated period of 15 days in addition to 30 days as is envisaged under section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. Further it is observed that the commencing point of limitation of 30 days under section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act would be from the date of receipt of the notice with the copy of Complaint by the Opposite party. In view of the aforesaid observations, it is crystal clear that no discretion is left with District Consumer Commission to extend the period beyond 45 days for filing the written version.
During the course of arguments, it was also submitted by Shri.Badhe, learned advocate for the Petitioner that due to Covid-19 pandemic, exemption was also granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. But this aspect was not taken into consideration. In this regard, it is necessary to mention that the period from 15/3/2020 to 28/2/2022 was exempted by the Supreme Court. But in the present case, copy of the notice was admittedly received by the Opposite party on 9/3/2022 and so, the same would not help the case of the Petitioner.
In view of the aforesaid facts and in the light of observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Hilly Multipurpose, we do not see any error in the order dated 20/5/2022 passed by the learned Additional District Consumer Commission, Nagpur, and so, we are unable to accept the submission advanced by the learned advocate of the petitioner. As such, we proceed to pass the following order..
FINAL ORDER
- The Revision Petition No. No. RP/22/37 is hereby Dismissed.
- Copies of the order be supplied to both the parties free of cost.
