State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S D.R.S Dilip Road Linis vs Arnabc Chakma on 13 December, 2023
RP/69/2023 M/S D.R.S. DILIP ROAD LINIS PVT. LTD. VS ARNABC CHAKMA DOD 13.12.2023 M/S D.R.S. DILIP ROAD LINIS PVT.LTD. VS ARNABC CHAKMA 13.12.2023 RP/69/2023 1.
This revision petition has been filed on 06.11.2023 vide diary no.
597 impugning order dated 21.09.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II (South-I).
2. Record has been carefully and thoroughly perused.
3. Impugned order dated 21.09.2023 reads as under:
"Case No. 135/23 21.09.2023 Present: Adv. Sunanda Tulsayan for complainant.
Adv. Mahender Singh for OP.
Complainant copy was collected on 28.07.2023.
Counsel for OP is presenting a copy of reply without any affidavit and he requests that he would be supplying proper copy at 2 PM.
It is seen that complaint copy was collected on 28.07.2023. Reply being beyond stipulated time cannot taken on record. Right of OP to file reply is closed.
List on 07.11.2023 for complainant's evidence."
4. The revisionist in revision petition has submitted that upon receiving of the summon from the District Commission on 28.07.2023, counsel for the revisionist, namely, Mr. Mahendra Singh had appeared and received the copy of the complaint and sought time to file reply. The revisionist had appointed Mr. Page 1 of 7 RP/69/2023 M/S D.R.S. DILIP ROAD LINIS PVT. LTD. VS ARNABC CHAKMA DOD 13.12.2023 Sachin Gupta advocate to file reply within 45 days as Mr. Mahendra Singh advocate was out of time and was not available to file reply within stipulated period. Para no. 3 to 7 of revision petition read under:
"3. That upon receiving of the summon from the Ld. Commission to appear before the Ld. Commission on 28/7/2023 the Revisionist counsel Namely Mr Mahendra Singh appeared and receive the copy of the complaint and sought to file reply
4. That the Revisionist had appointed Mr Sh. Sachin Gupta Adv to file the reply before Hon'ble Commission within 45 days as the same is stipulated time as Mr. Mahendra Singh Adv was out of time and was not able to file the reply within stipulated time.
5. That on 16.09.2023, in the evening, Mr. Sh. Sachin Gupta Adv had informed the Revisionist that he could not file the reply within time as he not well.
6. That on 21/9/2023 Mr. Mahendra Singh, Advocate was appeared before the Hon'ble State Commission and submitted to file the reply during the course of the day.
7. That on 21/9/2023 the Hon'ble State Commission has refused to take the reply on record as the same was not filed within stipulated time i.e. within 45 days from receiving the copy of the complaint and closed the right to file the reply."
5. As per the case of the revisionist as averred in para 3 to 7, the revisionist/OP has filed reply on 21.09.2023 with delay of 55 days.
Page 2 of 7RP/69/2023 M/S D.R.S. DILIP ROAD LINIS PVT. LTD. VS ARNABC CHAKMA DOD 13.12.2023
6. 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;"
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."
7. A 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 along with notice.
8. A perusal of application under disposal shows that as per impugned order, the copy of complaint was collected on 28.07.2023 and the written statement was filed on 21.09.2023 i.e. after the stipulated period of 30 days provided under Section 38(2)(a)r/w Section 49(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
9. Further, even if the revisionist/opposite party is granted the extended period of 15 days, still there is delay of 10 days in filing written statement and matter does not fall within statutory period of 45 days as prescribed under Section 38(2)(a)r/w Section 49(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
10. It is well settled position that if the written statement is filed beyond the period of 30 days, it is upon the discretion of the Page 3 of 7 RP/69/2023 M/S D.R.S. DILIP ROAD LINIS PVT. LTD. VS ARNABC CHAKMA DOD 13.12.2023 adjudicating Court to condone the delay if sufficient cause has been provided by the Opposite Party.
11. It is further appropriate to refer to the case of New India Assurance Vs Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2020) 5 SCC 757, wherein the Apex Court held as under:-
"8. A bare reading of Section 13(2)(a) of the Act makes it clear that the copy of the complaint which is to be sent to the opposite party, is to be with the direction to give his version of (or response to) the case (or complaint) within a period of 30 days. It further provides that such period of 30 days can be extended by the District Forum, but not beyond 15 days.
13. On the contrary, sub-Section (2)(a) of Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act provides for the opposite party to give his response 'within a period of 30 days or such extended period not exceeding 15 days as may be granted by the District Forum'. The intention of the legislature seems to be very clear that the opposite party would get the time of 30 days, and in addition another 15 days at the discretion of the Forum to file its response. No further discretion of granting time beyond 45 days is intended under the Act."
A perusal of the above settled law shows that the extended period of 15 days is at the discretion of the court and if the court is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the written statement within stipulated period of thirty days, then only the written statement be filed within the extended period of 15 days. Moreover, it is also clear from the abovementioned dicta that there is no discretion of granting the extension of time period beyond the period of forty-five days.
Page 4 of 7RP/69/2023 M/S D.R.S. DILIP ROAD LINIS PVT. LTD. VS ARNABC CHAKMA DOD 13.12.2023
12. 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" 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."
13. 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, Page 5 of 7 RP/69/2023 M/S D.R.S. DILIP ROAD LINIS PVT. LTD. VS ARNABC CHAKMA DOD 13.12.2023 and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the Court should not allow the application for condonation of delay.
14. 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:
"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.
15. It has been noted that the copy of the complaint was received on 28.07.2023 by the revisionist/opposite party and on 21.09.2023 the revisionist/opposite party has filed reply with delay of 25 days.
16. Relying on the above settled law and considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the revisionist for the delay, according to us, the revisionist has miserably failed to give Page 6 of 7 RP/69/2023 M/S D.R.S. DILIP ROAD LINIS PVT. LTD. VS ARNABC CHAKMA DOD 13.12.2023 any acceptable and cogent/sufficient reason to condone the delay. Accordingly, the written statement of the revisionist cannot be taken on record.
17. Consequently, RP/69/2023 filed by the revisionist cannot be admitted and stands dismissed.
18. File be consigned to Record Room.
(Pinki) Member (Judicial) (Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal) President J.P. Agrawal Member (General) Page 7 of 7