State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Uber India Systems Pvt.Ltd. vs Reema J.Chawla on 21 November, 2023
RP/23/14
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Revision Petition No.RP/23/14
Arisen out of Interim Order dated 18/11/2022 passed in Complaint No.161 of
2022 of District Commission Central Mumbai)
UBER INDIA SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,
Having address at:
Level 13, Platinum Techno Park,
Plot No.17/18, Sector 30A,
Vashi, Navi Mumbai,
....... Petitioner(s)
Maharashtra - 400 705.
Versus
REEMA JEETSINGH CHAWLA,
Having address at:
C-702, Comet Apartments,
Bhakti Park Colony, Wadala (East),
Mumbai - 400 037. .........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Mukesh V. Sharma -Presiding Member
Poonam V. Maharshi - Member
For the Petitioner(s) : Advocate Jotirmay Deshmukh a/w
Advocate Sukrut Mhatre
For the Respondent(s) : Advocate Prashant Nayak
ORDER
(21/11/2023)
Per Hon'ble Ms.Poonam Maharshi -Member:
(1) The Petitioner - Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd., has preferred the present Revision Petition feeling aggrieved by the order dated 18/11/2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Central Mumbai, whereby the petitioner was not 1 RP/23/14 permitted to file written version on record and the impugned order proceeding without written statement came to be passed.
(2) Short facts leading to the Revision petition are that, Respondent/Complainant Reema Jeetsingh Chawla has preferred complaint alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the petitioner. The Petitioner has contended that as the Head Office of the petitioner is situated at Dehli, it had filed the undertaking to submit the vakalatnama on the next date within limitation period and on 25th August, 2022 the petitioner filed vakalatnama along with board resolution and the next date in the matter was 2nd September, 2022 for filing written version. On the same day i.e. on 2nd September, 2022, the petitioner filed on record unsigned copy of the written version and later, on 16th September, 2022 submitted written version in dispatch section.
On 30th September, 2022, the advocate for respondent/complainant made an application for passing no written version order against the petitioner. After hearing both the parties the impugned order dated 18th November, 2022 came to be passed.
(3) After filing of the Revision Petition due notice was issued to the respondent/complainant. We have heard learned advocate for the petitioner as well as Respondent. We have also carefully gone through the impugned order dated 18th November, 2022 passed by the District Commission.
(4) Bare perusal of the impugned order dated 18 th November, 2022, the copy of the petition and the reply-cum-written arguments 2 RP/23/14 filed by the Respondent/complainant it reveals that the notice of the consumer complaint admittedly received by the present petitioner on 18th July, 2022 and it is clear from the perusal of the reply filed by the respondent/complainant that the petitioner had filed an undertaking to submit vakalatnama on the next date as the office of the petitioner is located at New Delhi. On 25 th August, 2022 the petitioner had filed vakalatnama along with board resolution and the matter was adjourned for filing written version on 2nd September, 2022. But, on 2nd September, 2022 the petitioner has submitted unsigned copy of written version. Therefore, the said unsigned copy of written version was not considered as per provisions of the law. The petitioner had submitted the signed copy of fresh written version on 16/09/2022 in dispatch section. However, the said signed copy was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Therefore, both copies of written version, i.e. unsigned copy dated 2nd September, 2022 and signed copy filed on 16th September, 2022 are inadmissible in law as both were filed beyond the period of 45 days prescribed under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Hence, the impugned order dated 18th November, 2022 came to be passed.
(5) According to us both written versions submitted on 2 nd September, 2022 and 16th September, 2022 are beyond the limitation period of 45 days prescribed under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. It is now well settled and crystalized by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the opponent has to file written version within stipulated period of 45 days and the same is mandatory in nature. No doubt, the 3 RP/23/14 petitioner had placed on record the signed copy of written version but the same is beyond the limitation period. we are of the view that no discretion is left either to the District Consumer Commission or to the State Consumer Commission to grant any extension in view of the landmark judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V/s Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., in Civil Appeal No.10941 and 10942 of 2013 decided on 04th March, 2020.
(6) Admittedly, the petitioner has not filed the written version within prescribed period of 45 days from the date of receipt of notice i.e. on 18th July, 2022 and the impugned order dated 18th November, 2022 came to be passed. We find that the said order does not suffer from any infirmity and so the present Revision Petition is devoid of any substance. Therefore, we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
(i) Revision Petition is hereby dismissed.
(ii) Parties to bear their own costs.
(iii) Copies of this order be furnished to the parties Mukesh V. Sharma] Presiding Member [Poonam V. Maharshi] Member emp 4