State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ms Deepa Mehendru vs Bestech Ind. Pvt. Ltd. on 16 October, 2024
DEEPA MEHENDRU VS. BESTECH PVT. LTD. & ANR.
16.10.2024 IA-811-24 IN CC-231/21 Vide this order we shall dispose of an application for condonation of delay, filed on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2 seeking to condone the delay in filing the written statement.
The present complaint was filed on 24.12.2021, alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties. Thereafter, vide order dated 03.01.2022, notice was issued to the Opposite Parties through registered post and speed post along with the copy of complaint, the same was not received back. The Opposite Party No.2 filed the written statement on 21.04.2022 alongwith an application seeking condonation of delay of 14 days on the ground that the Applicant received a copy of the notice from this Commission on 07.03.2022 and along with annexures on 09.03.2022. Moreover, the Counsel for the Applicant fell ill and had to be away from the office for some days. Therefore, the non-filling of the written statement within time was neither intentional nor deliberate.
To adjudicate this issue, we deem it appropriate to refer to Section 38(2)(a) r/w Section 49(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which provides as under:
"Section 38(2): Where the complaint relates to any goods, the District Commission shall, - 2(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 it;"
PAGE 1 OF 5 Section 49 (1): The provisions relating to complaints under sections 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39 shall, with such modifications as may be necessary, be applicable to the disposal of complaints by the State Commission."
Perusal of the aforesaid statutory position reflects that the written version/written statement against the consumer complaint should be preferred within a period of thirty days or extended period of fifteen days as granted by it, from the date of receipt of the copy of the Complaint alongwith notice.
On perusal of record, it is evident from the record that the copy of the complaint received by the Opposite Party no.2 on 07.03.2022 and the written statement was filed on 21.04.2022 i.e., after the stipulated period of 30 days but within the extended period of 15 days provided under Section 38(2)(a) r/w Section 49 (1).
Further, it is well settled position that if the written statement filed beyond the period of 30 days but with the extended period of 15 days, it is upon the discretion of the adjudicating Court to condone the delay if sufficient cause has been provided by the Opposite Party.
In order to condone the delay, the Opposite Party has to satisfy this Commission that there was sufficient cause for filing the written statement after the stipulated period. The term 'sufficient cause' has been explained by the Apex Court in Basawaraj and Ors. vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer reported in AIR 2014 SC 746. The relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced as under:-
"9. Sufficient cause is the cause for which Defendant could not be blamed for his absence. The meaning of the word "sufficient" is "adequate" or "enough", inasmuch as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, the word "sufficient"
PAGE 2 OF 5 embraces no more than that which provides a platitude, which when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a case, duly examined from the view point of a reasonable standard of a cautious man. In this context, "sufficient cause" means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party has "not acted diligently" or "remained inactive". However, the facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the Court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the Court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously. The applicant must satisfy the Court that he was prevented by any "sufficient cause" from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the Court should not allow the application for condonation of delay. The court has to examine whether the mistake is bona fide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose." From the aforesaid dicta of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is clear that 'sufficient cause' means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part and applicant must satisfy the Court that he was prevented by any "sufficient cause" from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the Court should not allow the application for condonation of delay.
We further deem it appropriate to refer to Lingeswaran Etc. Versus Thirunagalingam in Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 2054- 2055/2022 decided on 25.02.2022, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: -
PAGE 3 OF 5 "5. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. Once it was found even by the learned trial Court that delay has not been properly explained and even there are no merits in the application for condonation of delay, thereafter, the matter should rest there and the condonation of delay application was required to be dismissed. The approach adopted by the learned trial Court that, even after finding that, in absence of any material evidence it cannot be said that the delay has been explained and that there are no merits in the application, still to condone the delay would be giving a premium to a person who fails to explain the delay and who is guilty of delay and laches. At this stage, the decision of this Court in the case of Popat Bahiru Goverdhane v.
Land Acquisition Officer, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 765 is required to be referred to. In the said decision, it is observed and held that the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the Court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same.
Reverting to the material available on record, we find that the copy of the complaint along with the notice, was received by the Opposite Party no.2 had received the copy of the complaint on 07.03.2022 and filed the written statement on 21.04.2022. Further, PAGE 4 OF 5 the statutory period for filing the written statement in the present case has expired on 07.04.2022 and the Opposite Party No.2 submitted that the delay caused was due to the counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 fell ill. However, the Opposite Party No.2 has failed to file any documentary proof or substantiated evidence in support of its submission. Therefore, in absence of any document or any other evidence, no presumption can be raised in this regard.
Relying on the above settled law and considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Opposite Party No.2 for the delay, according to us, the Opposite Party No.2 has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent sufficient reasons to condone such delay. Accordingly, the IA-811/2024 filed by the Opposite Party No.2 seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statement cannot be admitted and stands dismissed. Resultantly, the written statement filed by the Opposite Party No.2 cannot be taken on record.
It is clarified that the parties shall complete their pleading(s) on their own responsibility and if the same is/are not filed within the stipulated time period, it will be assumed that the respective party is not interested in filing the relevant document(s)/pleading(s) and the right to file the same shall be deemed to be closed.
List the matter on 23.12.2024 for final arguments and disposal.
(Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal) President (Pinki) PAGE 5 OF 5 Member (Judicial) LR-SM PAGE 6 OF 5