National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. vs Jasmin Prabhakar Mehta & Anr. on 19 January, 2016
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 784 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 20/07/2015 in Complaint No. 161/2015 of the State Commission Maharastra) 1. PANASONIC INDIA PVT. LTD. PLOT NO. 07, FIFTH FLOOR, NAYAK CHAMBER, OPPOSITE FUN CINEMA, NEW LINK ROAD, ANDHERI (WEST) MUMBAI-400058 ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. JASMIN PRABHAKAR MEHTA & ANR. SUMMER HEIGHTS 9TH FLOOR, FLAT NO. 901, NR. BHAVNAS COLLEGE, CHOUPATY MUMBAI-400007 2. M/S. FAIRDEAL ELECTRONICS SHOP NO. 12, GROUND FLOOR, ASHOKA SHOPPING CENTRE, NEAR G.T. HOSPITAL, L.T. MARG, MUMBAI-400001 ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Appellant : Mr. Rishi Kapoor, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Vikas Nautiyal, Advocate with
Mr. Digambar R. Thakare, Advocate for R-1
Mr. Sonam Sharma, Advocate with
Ms. Chandni Goyal, Advocate for R-2
Dated : 19 Jan 2016 ORDER
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 20.07.2015 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (for short "the State Commission") in Complaint Case No. CC/15/161, the second Opposite Party, i.e. Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd., preferred this Appeal, under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act). By the impugned order, the State Commission has proceeded ex-parte against the Appellant herein.
2. The impugned order reads as follows:
"Advocate Digambar Thakare is present for the complainant. Advocate Suchitra Sable is present for the opponent no.2. Complaint is already proceeded ex-parte against the opponent no.1. This is the last day for filing written version of opponent no.2. However, Advocate for the opponent no.2 has not filed written version. Hence, matter to proceed without written version against the opponent no.2. Matter is adjourned to 31/08/2015."
3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that Advocate Rajesh Choudhari was present before the State Commission on behalf of the Appellant herein on 08.06.2015, on which date the Complaint was admitted. Thereafter, the State Commission, vide the said order, adjourned the matter to 07.07.2015 for filing the written version of the Opposite Parties. Subsequently, the State Commission, vide its order dated 07.07.2015, granted 14 days' time by way of a last chance to the Appellant to file the written version and posted the matter to 20.07.2015. As on that date, though the Advocate for the Appellant had appeared, they did not file the written version and hence the State Commission proceeded ex-parte against them, i.e. their right to file the written version was forfeited, and the matter was adjourned to 31.08.2015.
4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the period of 45 days, i.e. initial 30 days plus 15 days, was not completed, as the State Commission had adjourned the matter from 08.06.2015 to 07.07.2015 and thereafter to 20.07.2015. He argued that the timeframe involved in this period is only 44 days.
5. Learned Counsel for the first Respondent/Complainant vehemently opposed giving an opportunity to the Appellant herein on the ground that their Advocate was present on the very first day when the Complaint was admitted, i.e. on 08.06.2015, and was aware that the matter was posted for 07.07.2015. Once again, the State Commission had adjourned the matter to 20.07.2015 as a last chance in the presence of their Advocate. The Counsel for the Complainant further submitted that now the Appellant cannot seek an extension of further time and relied on the recent decision dated 04.12.2015 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (Civil Appeals No.10941-10942 of 2013).
6. The brief point that falls for consideration is as to whether the State Commission ought to have given further time to file the written version to the Appellant herein before proceeding ex-parte against it.
7. Section 13 of the Act deals with procedure on admission of Complaint and reads as follows:
"13. [Procedure on admission of complaint].--
(1) The District Forum shall, on admission of a complaint], if it relates to any goods,--
(a) refer a copy of the admitted complaint, within twenty-one days from the date of its admission to the opposite party mentioned in the complaint directing him to give his version of the case within a period of thirty days or such extended period not exceeding fifteen days as may be granted by the District Forum.
XXX XXX XXX"
8. In the aforementioned Section, it is clear that the period not exceeding "15 days", as may be granted by the District Forum, is only discretionary and not mandatory. In the instant case, the State Commission had extended the period from 07.07.2015 to 20.07.2015, which order reads as follows:
"Mr. Digambar Thakare-Advocate for the complainant. Advocate Suchitra Sable-Advocate files her vakalatnama on behalf of opponent no.2. She seeks for extension of time for filing written version. 14 days time is granted by way of last chance. Opponent no.1 failed to appear without any sufficient reason in spite of receipt of notice. Hence, complaint to proceed ex-parte against opponent no.1. Opponent no.2 is directed to file written version and say on the application for interim relief on the next date i.e. 20/07/2015."
9. From this order, it is clear that the State Commission had exercised its discretion and extended the time for filing the written version by 14 days, as the Section 13 of the Act stipulates that time period extended cannot be exceeded by more than 15 days. It is pertinent to note that the Appellant herein has not filed any application before the State Commission seeking extension of time.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has discussed Dr. J.J. Mechant & Ors. V. Shrinath Chaturvedi, (2002) 6 SCC 635 and Kailash v. Nankhu & Ors., (2005) 4 SCC 480 in great detail and held that the provisions incorporated in Section 13 of the Act are mandatory in nature and not just procedural rules. The Apex Court further held as follows:
"15. Upon hearing the concerned counsel and upon perusal of both the judgments referred to hereinabove, which pertain to extension of time for the purpose of filing written statement, we are of the opinion that the view expressed by the threeJudge Bench of this Court in Dr. J.J. Merchant (supra) should prevail.
16. In the case of Dr. J.J. Merchant(supra), which is on the same subject, this Court observed as under:
"13. The National Commission or the State Commission is empowered to follow the said procedure. From the aforesaid section it is apparent that on receipt of the complaint, the opposite party is required to be given notice directing him to give his version of the case within a period of 30 days or such extended period not exceeding 15 days as may be granted by the District Forum or the Commission. For having speedy trail, this legislative mandate of not giving more than 45 days in submitting the written statement or the version of the case is required to be adhered to. If this is not adhered to, the legislative mandate of disposing of the cases within three or five months would be defeated.
14. For this purpose, even Parliament has amended Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which reads thus:
"1. Written statement. - The defendant shall, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him, present a written statement of his defence:
Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the same on such other day, as may be specified by the court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, but which shall not be later than ninety days from the date of service of summons."
15. Under this Rule also, there is a legislative mandate that written statement of defence is to be filed within 30 days. However, if there is a failure to file such written statement within the stipulated time, the court can at the most extend further period of 60 days and no more. Under the Act, the legislative intent is not to give 90 days of time but only maximum 45 days for filing the version of the opposite party. Therefore, the aforesaid mandate is required to be strictly adhered to."
11. I am of the considered view that the State Commission has rightly forfeited the right of the Appellant in filing the written version and proceeded ex-parte against it.
12. In the result, this Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
...................... M. SHREESHA PRESIDING MEMBER