JUSTICE V.K.JAIN (ORAL)

This appeal is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 24.01.2018 whereby the State Commission adjourned the matter to 02.04.2018 for filing evidence of the complainant, no one on behalf of the appellant being present at that time.

2.      A perusal of the order of the State Commission dated 04.01.2018 show that on that day the counsel for the appellant had appeared before State Commission and filed vakalatnama. The State Commission fixed 24.01.2018 for filing the written version of the appellant. Therefore, time till 24.01.2018 had been given by the State Commission to the appellant to file its written version. A perusal of the postal record would show that the written version was sent by the appellant from Mumbai to its counsel in Kolkata and was received by the counsel at 11:30 a.m. on 24.01.2018. The submission of the counsel for the appellant is that the reply when taken to the registry of the State Commission on the same day but was not accepted since the matter had already been adjourned by that time.

3.      Since the written version had been sent by the appellant to the counsel on 23.01.2018 and had been received by the counsel on 24.01.2018 the delay of maybe a few hours in filing the written version cannot be said to be deliberate or contumacious. The State Commission, in my opinion, ought to have accepted the written version even though it was said to be filed after the matter had been adjourned on 24.01.2018. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside and the State Commission is directed to take the written version of the appellant on record and then decide the consumer complaint on merits. The State Commission shall decide the complaint within 3 months of the next date fixed before it.