State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Nishant Pitti Director Ease My Trip vs Girish Sehgal on 22 October, 2024
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH [ADDITIONAL BENCH] ============ Revision Petition No. : RP/54/2024 Date of Institution : 17/09/2024 Date of Decision : 22/10/2024 Nishant Pitti, Authorized Person/Director of EASE My Trip Limited, 223, F.I.E. Patparganj Industrial Area, East Delhi - 110095. ...... Petitioner V E R S U S Girish Sehgal son of Late Anil Sehgal and Smt. Anita Sehgal, Resident of H.No.3609, Sector 23-D, Chandigarh - 160023. ...... Respondent BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY PRESIDING MEMBER
PREETINDER SINGH MEMBER PRESENT : Ms. Meenakshi Dogra, Advocate for the Petitioner PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER
This Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 25.01.2024 rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh (for brevity hereinafter to be referred as the "Ld. District Commission") in Consumer Complaint bearing No.CC/572/2023, whereby the Ld. Lower Commission struck off the right of the Petitioner (Opposite Party) to file written version as it failed to file the same within the stipulated period of 45 days from the date of receipt of notice. The Petitioner/OP, has thus made the prayer to revise the order dated 25.01.2024 and to allow the Petitioner/OP to participate in the proceedings.
The only issue in this Revision Petition relates to foreclosure of right of the Petitioner (Opposite Party) to file written statement. The merits of this case, therefore, need not be discussed.
Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and carefully gone through the record with utmost care and circumspection.
After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the 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.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued that the Petitioner received a court notice along with a copy of the Complaint filed by the Respondent and the Petitioner was required to appear before the Ld. District Commission on the next date of hearing i.e. 08.01.2024. After receiving the said notice, the Petitioner immediately informed the local counsel to appear on 08.01.2024. Subsequently, on 06.01.2024, the Petitioner also shared the reply on behalf of the Petitioner to the Complaint with the local counsel to file on the date of hearing i.e. 08.01.2024. The Petitioner informed its counsel about the matter and an associate of the main counsel appeared on 08.01.024 and sought time to file written version. There was a written statement prepared by the Petitioner prior to 25.01.2024, but due to some reason best known to the local counsel, the written statement could not be filed and the local counsel was not able to appear before the Ld. District Commission. The Ld. District Commission failed to appreciate the fact that non-appearance of counsel to apprise the Ld. Commission on behalf of the Petitioner was neither intentional nor wilful and hence, the order of the Ld. District Commission suffers from grave infirmity and thus liable to be quashed.
However, per material available on record, we do not find any weight and substance in the submissions made hereinabove by Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Opposite Party, as pursuant to notice, one Ms. Niharika Goel, Advocate entered appearance on behalf of the Opposite Party on 08.01.2024 and last opportunity was granted to file written version on or before 25.01.2024. It defies all logic, wisdom that when last opportunity was granted to the Petitioner/OP why the written version to the complaint was not filed within the prescribed statutory period of 45 days as mandated under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This shows clear negligence on the part of the Petitioner/OP to proceed with the matter.
To our mind, the litigant owes a duty to be vigilant of his rights and is also expected to be equally vigilant about the proceedings pending in the court of law against him or initiated at his/her instance. There was thus sheer lack of vigilance on the part of the Petitioner/OP in conducting proceedings before the Ld. District Commission and he cannot be allowed to wriggle out of the situation by putting entire blame on the counsel appointed for any adverse order passed. It is a general principle of law that law is made to protect only diligent and vigilant people but not the indolent. Law will not protect those people who are careless about their rights.
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."
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 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."
From the foregoing discussion and the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court, we are of the view that the order passed by the Ld. District Commission is justified. The Petitioner/OP failed to show any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference in the findings recorded by the Ld. District Commission. The Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly, dismissed with no order as to cost.
The pending application(s), if any, stand disposed off accordingly.
Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.
The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced 22nd October,2024 Sd/-
(PADMA PANDEY) PRESIDING MEMBER Sd/-
(PREETINDER SINGH) MEMBER "Dutt"