State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Director State Transport, 30 Bays, ... vs Sh. Ashok Kumar on 20 June, 2024
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T.CHANDIGARH
[ADDITIONAL BENCH]
Revision Petition No. : RP/52/2023
Date of Institution : 07/11/2023
Date of Decision : 20/06/2024
Directorate State Transport, 30 Bays, Sector-17, Chandigarh through
General Manager, Haryana Roadways Depot, Fatehabad, District
Fatehabad (e-mail- [email protected])
...... Petitioner
VERSUS
Ashok Kumar S/o Sh.Dalbir Singh Village Mouhla, District Hissar
(Haryana)-125042
....... Respondent
BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY PRESIDING MEMBER
PREETINDER SINGH MEMBER Argued by: Sh.A.P.S.Virk, ADA for the Revision petitioner.
Sh.Ashok Kumar, respondent in person.
PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER This Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 04.09.2023 rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh (for brevity hereinafter to be referred as "the Ld. Lower Commission") in Consumer Complaint bearing No.CC/288/2023, 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. The Petitioner has made following prayer: -
"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the revision petition of the revisionist may kindly be accepted and the impugned order passed by the Court of Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh may kindly be set aside and the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T.Chandigarh may kindly be directed to consider the written statement submitted by the revisionist on 25.7.2023 and to 2 grant opportunity to the revisionist to lead evidence, in the interest of justice. "
2. The only issue in this Revision Petition relates to closure of right of the Petitioner (Opposite Party No.1) to file written statement. The merits of this case, therefore, need not be discussed.
3. We have heard the Learned Govt. Pleader/ADA for the Petitioner and the respondent and gone through the record with utmost care and circumspection.
4. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions raised and 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.
5. It is inter-alia pleaded in the revision petition that vide order dated 22.05.2023 summons were issued by the Ld. Lower Commission for appearance on 10.7.2023. After service of notice, revisionist appeared before the Ld. Lower Commission and the matter was fixed for 25.7.2023. On the date fixed i.e. 25.07.2023 the revisionist submitted its written version before the Registry Clerk at 10.15 A.M. but the same was not taken into consideration and the right of the revisionist to file written version was struck off. However, a perusal of the order dated 25.7.2023 passed by the Ld Lower Commission reveals that none was present for OP No.1/revisionist and no written version was filed by it as per noting made under the zimni order. Even report from the Registry Clerk was obtained, who vide his report dated 15.3.2024 submitted that written statement was submitted at the reception counter on 25.7.2023 but as the complaint was listed for that date, bearer of the written statement on behalf of OP No.1 was instructed to place it before the District Commission concerned but the 3 same was not submitted in the District Commission and instead he left the premises with original stamped copy of index of written statement.
6. Be that as it may, written version was not filed on 25.7.2023 by the revisionist/OP No.1 before the Ld. Lower Commission. It appears that the revisionist is under misconception that 45 days are to be counted from the date of appearance whereas the period of 45 days starts from the date of service. 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 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."
7. 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 4 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."
8. For the foregoing discussion and the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are of the view that the order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission is justified. The Petitioner has failed to show any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference in the findings recorded by the Ld. Lower Commission. The revision petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
9. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
10. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.
11. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion. Pronounced 20th June,2024 (PADMA PANDEY) PRESIDING MEMBER (PREETINDER SINGH) MEMBER JS 5 STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH [ADDITIONAL BENCH] RP/52/2023 Directorate State Transport Vs. Ashok Kumar Argued by: Sh.A.P.S.Virk, ADA for the Revision petitioner.
Sh.Ashok Kumar, respondent in person.
Dated the 20 t h day of June 2024 ORDER Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, this revision petition has been dismissed with no orders as to costs.
After compliance, file be consigned to record room.
(PADMA PANDEY) PRESIDING MEMBER (PREETINDER SINGH) MEMBER