National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S. Vessella Valley & Anr. vs G Laxmi Narasamma & 6 Ors. on 18 June, 2020
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 941 OF 2019 (Against the Order dated 31/10/2018 in Complaint No. 134/2018 of the State Commission Telangana) 1. M/S. VESSELLA VALLEY & ANR. MANAGING PARTNER P. PRASANTH REDDY, NORTH BLOCK , VILL NO 07, CYBER MEADOWS KONDAPUR SERILINGAMPALLY MANDAL RANGA REDDY 2. P. PRASANTH REDDY S/O. P. AROGYAM REDDY, VILL NO 07, CYBER MEADOWS KONDAPUR SERILINGAMPALLY MANDAL RANGA REDDY ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. G LAXMI NARASAMMA & 6 ORS. R/O. H NO 1-116/A, RAIDURG VILLAGE SERILINGAMPALLY RANGA REDDY 2. SR. G. PREM RAJ S/O. LATE MALLESH, R/O. H NO 1-116/A, RAIDURG VILLAGE SERILINGAMPALLY RANGA REDDY 3. SR. G SRINIVAS R/O. H NO 1-116/A, RAIDURG VILLAGE SERILINGAMPALLY RANGA REDDY 4. SRI G SRISAILAM S/O. LATE MALLESH R/O. H NO 1-116/A, RAIDURG VILLAGE SERILINGAMPALLY RANGA REDDY 5. SR, G VENU GOPAL S/O. LATE G MALLESH, R/O. H NO 1-116/A, RAIDURG VILLAGE SERILINGAMPALLY RANGA REDDY 6. SRI G SANTOSH KUMAR S/O. LATE G MALLESHR/O. H NO 1-116/A, RAIDURG VILLAGE SERILINGAMPALLY RANGA REDDY 7. SR G VINOD KUMAR S/O. LATE G MALLESH R/O. H NO 1-116/A, RAIDURG VILLAGE SERILINGAMPALLY RANGA REDDY ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. PREM NARAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Appellant : Mr. Manoj C Mishra , Advocate For the Respondent :
Dated : 18 Jun 2020 ORDER
I A No.17864 of 2019 has been filed for recall of order dated 17.07.2019. The order reads as under:-
Heard.
"Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 17th October 2019, subject to the appellant directly remitting a sum of Rs.10,000/- to all the respondents separately to meet the to and fro and allied expenses within a period of four weeks.
Meanwhile, proceedings before the State Commission in CC no. 134 of 2018 shall remain stayed, till the next date of hearing."
2. The learned counsel has argued that all the respondents are family members and only respondent No.2 will contest the case against the appellants. Respondent No.2 has filed affidavit in this regard that he will contest on behalf of other family members/complainants/respondents. It was argued that in this scenario, there is no need to pay Rs.10,000/- to each of the respondents separately as per the order dated 17.07.2019. The learned counsel argued that all the respondents are family members and the case relates to only one residential unit for which all the respondents are co-owners/allottees.
3. It was further argued that if only respondent No.2 is paid Rs.10,000/- he will get the opportunity to contest the case for all the family members. Hence the learned counsel for the appellants requested that the order dated 17.07.2019 may be modified to the extent that the appellants may be directed to pay Rs.10,000/- only to respondent No.2.
4. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants and examined the record. It is seen that the notice was issued on 17.07.2019 to the respondents subject to appellants remitting a sum of Rs.10,000/- to each of the respondents separately to meet to and fro and allied expenses. Then on 17.10.2019, the appellants had not complied with the order of 17.07.2019 and no amount was sent to the respondents. Even on that day no application was filed for amendment of the order dated 17.07.2019. The matter was again taken up in Bench No.1 on 01.11.2019 and there also the direction was passed to pay the amount within 15 days and also send sufficient number of paper books so that notice be issued as per order dated 17.07.2019. Even on this day, no request was made by the appellants for amendment of order dated 17.07.2019. In fact, the first appeal was filed on 28.05.2019 and since 17.07.2019 the appellants have not complied with the order for service to the respondents. The application for amending order dated 17.07.2019 has been filed on 15.11.2019.
5. Registry has reported that registry has issued notice for 13.01.2020. As the issue of notice was subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as to and fro and allied expenses to all the respondents, I do not find it appropriate to amend the order dated 17.07.2019 at this stage. Consequently, IA No.17864 of 2019 is dismissed.
6. Though the matter was heard and reserved for order on IA No.17864 of 2019, however, it is seen that the appeal has been filed against the order dated 31st October, 2018 passed in Consumer Complaint No.134 of 2018 whereby opportunity to file written statement was forfeited for the appellants. Notice was issued in the matter keeping in view the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. and another vs. M/s. Mampee Timbers and Hardwares Pvt. Ltd. And another [Civil Appeal No.....of 2017 (D. No.2365 of 2017) decided on 10.2.2017, wherein the consumer fora have been authorised to accept the written statement filed with delay in appropriate cases on suitable terms. Now, a larger bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (Constitution Bench) has reviewed the judgment passed in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Civil Appeal Nos.10941-10942 of 2013, decided on December 04, 2015 (SC). Accordingly, in Civil Appeal No.10941-10942 of 2013, New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., (decided on 04.03.2020) the following has been held:-
"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 the answer to the second question is 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.
This Judgment to operate prospectively. The referred questions are answered accordingly."
7. From the above judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is now clear that the statutory period of 30 days for filing written statement cannot be extended beyond 15 days as provided in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appellants have admitted that they could not file the written statement within 45 days and that is why they have filed the present appeal for recalling order dated 31st October, 2019 passed by the State Commission forfeiting the right to file the written statement. As the period to file written statement cannot now be extended beyond this limit as per the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.10941-10942 of 2013, New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., (decided on 04.03.2020), there is no point in continuing with this appeal as this Commission would not be able to give any relief to the appellants. Thus, based on the aforesaid discussion, the present appeal has no merits and the same is dismissed in limine.
...................... PREM NARAIN PRESIDING MEMBER