Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

RP/16/72

ARVIND KUSHWAHA - Complainant(s)

Versus

TATA MOTORS LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SH. H. SHARMA

06 Nov 2020

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

                              

                                    REVISION PETITION NO. 61 OF 2016

(Arising out of order dated 12.05.2016 passed in C.C.No.474/2015 by the District Commission, Gwalior)

 

TATA MOTORS.                                                                                              …          PETITIONER.

 

Versus

                 

ARVIND KUSHWAHA & ORS.                                                                         …         RESPONDENTS.

 

                                      REVISION PETITION NO. 72 OF 2016

(Arising out of order dated 12.05.2016 passed in C.C.No.474/2015 by the District Commission, Gwalior)

 

ARVIND KUSHWAHA.                                                                                       …          PETITIONER.

 

Versus

                 

TATA MOTORS & ORS.                                                                                    …         RESPONDENTS

 

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR    :      PRESIDENT

                  HON’BLE SHRI S. S. BANSAL                                      :      MEMBER   

 

                                      O R D E R

06.11.2020

 

          Shri Hemant Sharma, learned counsel for the complainant Arvind Kushwaha.

            Shri Lalit Gupta, learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 Tata Motors.

            None for the other opposite parties.

 

As per Shri Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar :            

                         Aforesaid two revision petitions are taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order.  This order shall govern disposal of both the aforesaid revision petitions. For convenience facts of the case are taken from the Revision Petition No.61/2016 unless otherwise stated.     

2.                This revision petition arises out of the order dated 12.05.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gwalior (For short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.474/2015

3.                Briefly stated the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint case against the petitioner and the two opposite parties. After service of notice the

-2-

petitioner Tata Motors had appeared through counsel before the District Commission on 18.02.2016. Counsel for petitioner sought time to file reply which was granted by the District Commission by imposition of cost of Rs.500/-.  Thereafter on 03.03.2016 an unsigned reply was filed on behalf of petitioner before the District Commission.  Admittedly, after the prescribed period of limitation for filing reply on 30.03.2016 a signed reply of complaint was submitted by the petitioner before the District Commission, however, the District Commission recorded in the order sheet that the admissibility of the said reply filed by the petitioner (opposite party no.1) will be examined on the next date. 

4.                On 12.05.2016 the of reply which was undisputedly filed beyond the time limit as prescribed under Section 13 (2) (a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (For short ‘Act of 1986’) was refused to be taken on record by the District Commission placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt.Ltd. I (2016) CPJ 1 SC. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner has filed this revision petition. The complainant before the District Commission has also filed Revision Petition No.72/2016 challenging the part of the same impugned order by which the petitioner Tata Motors (opposite party no.1 in the complaint) has been extended opportunity to lead evidence in the matter. According to the complainant once the reply of opposite party no.1 was refused to be taken on record, no question of extending opportunity to lead evidence to it arise.

5.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

 

-3-

6.                     The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 10941-10942/2013 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. versus Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd  vide their order dated 04.03.2020 had clearly stated in paragraph 41 that:

                        “41.  To conclude, we hold that our answer to the first question is that the District Forum has no power to extend the time for filing the response to the complaint beyond the period of 15 days in addition to 30 days as is envisaged under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act; and 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 accompanied with the complaint by the opposite party, and not mere receipt of the notice of the complaint.”

 

7.                This Commission placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage, supra in Revision Petition No. 61/2019 (Dr. A. K. Pathak & Anr Vs Shalu Raikwar) decided on 31.08.2020 and in Revision Petition No. 56/2019 (Aditya Birla Health Insurance Company Limited Vs Jeevan & Anr) as also in Revision Petition No. 18/2020 (A.U.Small Finance Bank Vs Jeevan & Anr) decided on 01.09.2020 has held that it is quite clear that if the reply is not filed within 30 days and in addition 15 days, the District Commission had no power to extend the time for filing reply to complaint beyond 15 days in addition to 30 days from the date of service of notice of complaint as envisaged under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

8.                     In the circumstances and in view of the aforesaid legal position when a signed reply was submitted only on 30.03.2016, much after the prescribed period of limitation and the question regarding admissibility of reply submitted by the petitioner was kept open by the District Commission by specifically mentioning about it, the order of the

 

-4-

District Commission refusing to take the reply on record cannot be said to be illegal nor it can be said that the District Commission has reviewed its own order. The Revision Petition No. 61/2016 is therefore dismissed.

9.                     So far as the Revision Petition No.72/2016 filed by the complainant, we find that since the District Commission has refused to take the reply of opposite party no.1 on record, the question of giving opportunity to lead evidence to opposite party no.1- Tata Motors does not arise.  Said part of the impugned order is unsustainable and is set-aside. The Revision Petition is allowed to this extent.

10.               This order be placed in Revision Petition No.61/2016 and a copy be placed in Revision Petition No. 72/2016.

 

            (Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar)               (S. S. Bansal)           

                          President                                      Member