State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Rana Infracon India Private Limited vs Suraj Kamra on 3 May, 2024
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T. CHANDIGARH
[ADDITIONAL BENCH]
============
Rev i s io n P e ti ti o n N o. : RP/ 5 6/ 20 23
Da t e o f I ns ti tu ti o n : 18/ 12/ 20 23
Da t e of D ec is i on : 03/ 05/ 20 24
[1] Rana Infracon (India) Pvt. Ltd., through its
Managing Director, Ward No.3, Chaudheri, M.C.
Lalru, Tehsil Derabassi, Distt. S.A.S. Nagar,
Punjab.
[2] Jasmer Singh Rana, Director of M/s Rana Infracon
(India) Pvt. Ltd., Resident of House No.377, AOT
Complex, Sector 48-A, Chandigarh - 160047.
[3] Yashveer Singh, Director of M/s Rana Infracon
(India) Pvt. Ltd., Resident of House No.377, AOT
Complex, Sector 48-A, Chandigarh - 160047.
...... Petitioners
V E R S U S
Suraj Kamra son of Late R.L.Kamra, Resident of House
No.1278/1, Sector 44-B, Chandigarh - 160047.
...... Respondent
BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY PRESIDING MEMBER
PREETINDER SINGH MEMBER PRESENT : Ms. Juhi, Advocate for the Petitioners None for the Respondent.
PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER This Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 04.05.2023 rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T.
--2--
Chandigarh (for brevity hereinafter to be referred as the "Ld. District Commission") in Consumer Complaint bearing No.CC/831/2022, whereby the Ld. Lower Commission struck off the right of the Petitioner (Opposite Party No.1) to file written version as it failed to file the same within the stipulated period of 45 days from the date of receipt of notice. The Petitioners/OPs, among other reliefs, have made following reliefs: -
"a. to allow the present Revision by setting aside the impugned order dated 04.05.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Learned District Commission.
b. to allow the Petitioners/Opposite Parties to file the written statement/evidence before the Ld. District Commission."
2. The only issue in this Revision Petition relates to foreclosure of right of the Petitioner (Opposite Party No.1) to file written statement. The merits of this case, therefore, need not be discussed.
3. Notice of the Revision Petition sent for the service of Respondent/Complainant was received back with the report of "refusal". Since refusal is good service, and none appeared on behalf of the Respondent/ Complainant on the date fixed and also on the subsequent adjourned dates, therefore, we
--3--
have no option but to proceed further to decide the fate of the petition.
4. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners and carefully gone through the record with utmost care and circumspection.
5. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the material on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the instant Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.
6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners argued, the consumer complaint was admitted by the Ld. District Commission vide order dated 30.12.2022 and notice was issued to the Petitioners/OPs through registered A.D. cover as well as through e- mail for 27.01.2023 for filing written statement. The notice was received by the Petitioners/OPs and thus they engaged a counsel to represent them before the Ld. District Commission. On 27.01.2023, the said counsel appeared and sought time to file written statement and the matter was adjourned to 14.02.2023. On the subsequent adjourned dates i.e. 14.02.2023 and 24.02.2023 the counsel did not appear nor did he file the written statement and
--4--
eventually, the matter was adjourned to 04.05.2023 for filing written version being last opportunity. However, on 04.05.2023 again the counsel engaged did not appear and the defence of Opposite Party No.1 was struck off vide impugned order. Learned Counsel submitted that the aforesaid situation was not known to the Petitioners/OPs until 06.10.2023 and when it came to their knowledge that the earlier counsel was not appearing in the present matter and their right to file written version has been struck off, the Petitioners/OPs engaged her and accordingly she entered appearance before the Ld. District Commission on 06.10.2023 and the matter was adjourned to 07.12.2023. A submission was thus made that party should not be made to suffer on account of the negligence on the part of counsel.
7. However, per material available on record, we do not find any water in the submission made hereinabove by Learned Counsel for the Petitioners/OPs. It defies all logic, wisdom that when last opportunity was granted to the Petitioners/OPs why the written statement to the Complaint was not filed within the prescribed statutory period of 45 days as mandated under the
--5--
Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This shows clear negligence on the part of the Petitioners/OPs to proceed with the matter. To our mind, the litigant owes a duty to be vigilant of his rights and is also expected to be equally vigilant about the proceedings pending in the court of law against him or initiated at his/her instance. There was thus sheer lack of vigilance on the part of the Petitioners/OPs in conducting proceedings before the Ld. District Commission and they cannot be allowed to wriggle out of the situation by putting entire blame on the counsel appointed for any adverse order passed. It is a general principle of law that law is made to protect only diligent and vigilant people but not the indolent. Law will not protect those people who are careless about their rights.
8. On the issue of filing of written statement, law is very categoric. Three Judges Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of " New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd." SLP (C) No.2833 of 2014 & SLP (C) Nos.11257-11258 of 2014 decided on 04.12.2015 had an occasion to interpret the scope of period of
--6--
limitation for filing written statement, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: -
"17. We are, therefore, of the view that the judgment delivered in the case of Dr.J.J.Merchant (supra) holds the field and therefore, we reiterate the view that the District Forum can grant a further period of 15 days to the opposite party for filing his version or reply and not beyond that.
18. There is one more reason to follow the law laid down in the case of Dr.J.J.Merchant (supra).
Dr.J.J.Merchant (supra) was decided in 2002, whereas Kailash (supra) was decided in 2005. As per law laid down by this Court, while deciding the case of Kailsh (supra), this Court ought to have respected the view expressed in Dr.J.J.Merchant (supra) as the judgment delivered in the case of Dr.J.J.Merchant (supra) was earlier in point of time. The aforesaid legal position cannot be ignored by us and therefore, we are of the opinion that the view expressed in Dr.J.J.Merchant (supra) should be followed."
9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in " M/s Daddy's Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Manisha Bhargava and Anr." [Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 1240 of 2021] decided on 21.02.2021 observed as follows:-
"5. In any case, in view of the earlier decision of this Court in the case of Dr.J.J.Merchant (supra) and the subsequent authoritative decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (2020) 5 SCC 757, consumer fora has no jurisdiction and/or power to accept the written statement beyond the period of 45 days, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned National Commission.
6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the present special leave petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed."
--7--
10. From the foregoing discussion and the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court, we are of the view that the order passed by the Ld. District Commission is justified. The Petitioners/OPs failed to show any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference in the findings recorded by the Ld. District Commission. The Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly, dismissed with no order as to cost.
11. The pending application(s), if any, stand disposed off accordingly.
12. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.
13. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced 03 r d May, 2024 Sd/-
(PADMA PANDEY) PRESIDING MEMBER Sd/-
(PREETINDER SINGH) MEMBER "Dutt"