State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Anbe Sangeetha vs The Canara Bank on 22 August, 2023
1
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION AT PUDUCHERRY
Dated this the 22nd day of August 2023
First Appeal No.03/2023
Anbe Sangeetha,
W/o.Gurumoorthy,
Hindu, aged about 43 years
No.186, Vysial Street,
Puducherry-1. ... Appellant/ Complainant
Vs
1. The Canara Bank,
Rep. by its Managing Director-cum-
Chief Executive Officer,
Canara Bank having Head office
at No.112, J.C. Road, Bangalore-560 002.
2. The Canara Bank,
Rep. by its General Manager,
Recovery, Legal and Fraud Prevention
Wing, Canara Bank having office
at No.4 and 5, 6th Floor, Jeevan
Prakash Building, H.O. Annex,
113-1, J.C.Road, Bangalore-560 002.
3. The Canara Bank,
Rep. by its Divisional Manager-cum-
Authorised Officer, Canara Bank having
Office at Progress Avenue, No.120,
Lal Bahadhur Shastri Street,
Puducherry-605 001.
2
4. The Canara Bank ,
Rep. by its Chief Manager,
Having office at No.45, Gingee
Salai, Ponidcherry (Muthialpet Branch)
Puducherry-605 001.
.. Respondents/Opposite Parties
(On appeal against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Puducherry in
M.P.No.14/2023 in CC No.38/2022 dated 17.05.2023)
M.P.No.14/2023 in CC No.38/2022
1. The Canara Bank,
Rep. by its Managing Director-cum-
Chief Executive Officer,
Canara Bank having Head office
at No.112, J.C. Road, Bangalore-560 002.
2. The Canara Bank,
Rep. by its General Manager,
Recovery, Legal and Fraud Prevention
Wing, Canara Bank having office
at No.4 and 5, 6th Floor, Jeevan
Prakash Building, H.O. Annex,
113-1, J.C.Road, Bangalore-560 002.
3. The Canara Bank,
Rep. by its Divisional Manager-cum-
Authorised Officer, Canara Bank having
Office at Progress Avenue, No.120,
Lal Bahadhur Shastri Street,
Puducherry-605 001.
3
4. The Canara Bank ,
Rep. by its Chief Manager,
Having office at No.45, Gingee
Salai, Ponidcherry (Muthialpet Branch)
Puducherry-605 001. ... Petitioner/Opposite parties
Vs
Anbe Sangeetha,
W/o.Gurumoorthy,
Hindu, aged about 43 years
No.186, Vysial Street,
Puducherry-1. ... Respondent/Complainant
BEFORE:
HON'BLE THIRU JUSTICE R. PONGIAPPAN
PRESIDENT
DR.S. SUNDARAVADIVELU
MEMBER
TMT.S. OUMASANGUERY,
MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Thiru.S.Anandabascarane, Advocate
FOR THE RESPONDENTS:
Tvl.N.Baptiste Augustin, B.Vasanthakumar,
M.Annamalai, A.Tamilarasan, I,Selvakumar,
K.Vima Raj and M. Pravin Raj, Advocates
4
JUDGMENT
(By Hon'ble Thiru Justice R.Pongiappan, President) Being dissatisfied with the order dated 17.05.2023 made in M.P.No.14/2023 in CC No.38/2022 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Puducherry, the appellant, who is the respondent/Complainant before the District Commission, Puducherry preferred this appeal and praying to set aside the above order dated 17.05.2023 and also for the costs.
2. For the sake of convenience, herein after the appellant is called as respondent/complainant and respondents are called as petitioners/Opposite Parties.
Brief facts narrated in the affidavit accompanying the petition in M.P.No.14/2023 in CC No.38/2022 are as follows:
3. The opposite parties in CC No.38/2022 filed their reply version on 07.03.2023 and the same was returned by the District Commission, Puducherry by stating the reason that the reply version has not been filed within the statutory period as stipulated in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The opposite parties re-submitted the reply version by relying on the judgment of our Hon'ble Apex Court in "Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs. M/s.Mampee Timbers and Hardwares Private Limited" , wherein our Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the Consumer Fora to accept the written 5 statement/reply version beyond the stipulated time of 45 days in appropriate case.
4. With respect to the present case, the President of District Commission, Puducherry was kept vacant for the past four years. On 09.02.2023, the president of District Commission, Puducherry was appointed. The vakalat for opposite party nos.3 and 4 was filed on 20.12.2022 and vakalat for opposite party no.1 and 2 was filed on 12.01.2023. Subsequently the reply version was filed on 07.03.2023 by 4th opposite party, immediately after assuming the charge by the President of the District Commission. Accordingly, it is deemed that the reply version in the present case has been filed within the period of 45 days. Further, the petitioners filed condone delay petition for condoning the delay of 55 days in filing the reply version.
Before the District Commission, Puducherry, the respondent/complainant has filed her counter, resisting the contention raised by the petitioners/opposite parties, which are as follows:
5. It is incorrect to say that Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed the Consumer Fora to accept the written statement/reply version beyond the stipulated period of 45 days. Before the District Commission, Puducherry, the opposite parties 1 and 2have filed their vakalat on 12.01.2023 and so they ought to have filed their reply version within the period of 45 days. The Appointment of the President of District Commission has nothing to do with the stipulated period in which the reply version has to be filed. The quorum is 6 required only to adjudicate the case and not for daily routine court work. Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction or power to accept the reply version beyond the period of 45 days. As per section 38 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, reply version has to be filed within the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of notice issued by the Commission. No sufficient and reasonable cause has been given in the petition for condoning the delay.
6. The District Commission, Puducherry framed the following point for determination:
Whether the application filed by the petitioner can be allowed or not?
7. Having considered all the material facts placed before the District Commission, Puducherry, the District Commission by its order dated 17.05.2023 came to the conclusion that since the post of President, District Commission, Puducherry was vacant, the parties to the proceedings can not be expected to file the reply version within 45 days as stipulated in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and ultimately condoned the delay in filing the reply version and later the reply version filed by the 4th opposite party was received.
8. Only in the above backdrop, the respondent/complainant preferred this appeal before this Commission, praying to set aside the order passed in M.A.No.14/2023 on the following grounds:
The lower court has failed to consider the fact that its interpretation of section 36 of the Consumer Protection Act is erroneous and totally unacceptable and unsustainable under law. The lower court has failed to consider the fact that 7 the absence of the President of Commission is not a matter at all to be considered for filing reply version. The lower court has erred in coming to conclusion that the period of limitation for filing reply version starts only on
09.02.2023 which is a discovery and innovation by the lower court. The lower court has failed to consider the fact that the limitations for filing of reply version commences from the date of receipt of notice of the complaint under section 38 of Consumer Protection Act irrespective of the absence of the President of the Commission. The lower court has failed to consider that it has no power to condone the delay by over riding the mandatory provisions of the Act.
9. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in this appeal would contend that justification given by the District Commission, Puducherry for condoning the delay in filing the reply version beyond the statutory period is against the judgment rendered by our Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.1094110942 of 2013 in New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., wherein our Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:
"41. To conclude, we hold that our answer to the first question is that the District Forum has no power to extend the time for filing the response to the complaint beyond the period of 15 days in addition to 30 days as is envisaged under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act; and the answer to the second question is that the commencing point of limitation of 30 days under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act would be from the date of 8 receipt of the notice accompanied with the complaint by the opposite party, and not mere receipt of the notice of the complaint. "
10. Therefore, being the reason that the said judgment was rendered by our Constitution Bench, the said verdict has to be over-ruled only by a Constitution Bench, but in the present case, the District Commission without seeing the same, condoned the delay in filing the reply version and allowed the petition, hence prays to set aside the order passed by the District Commission, Puducherry.
11. By relying on the judgment dated 14.12.2021 in Civil Appeal No.7546 of 2021 in Diamond Exports & Anr. Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and others, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent in this appeal would argue that in the said judgment rendered by a three Judges Bench of our Apex Court, after discussing the several observations made in Civil Appeal No.1094110942 of 2013 in New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., it has been concluded that there is no wrong in receiving the reply version beyond the statutory period and therefore impugned order passed by the District Commission in MP No.14/2023 in CC No.38/2022 is correct and prays to dismiss the appeal.
12. In this regard, in the judgment rendered by our Hon'ble Apex Court in Diamond Exports & Anr. Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and others cited supra our Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows: 9
"16. In the present case, before the decision of the Constitution Bench, the delay was condoned by the NCDRC by furnishing reasons for the exercise of such discretion. Having regard to the prospective effect of the judgment of the Constitution Bench in New India Assurance Company Limited (Supra) and the orders of this Court in Reliance General Insurance Company Limited (Supra) and Bhasin Infotech 2018 (Supra), which had recognized an element of discretion pending the reference, we are of the considered view that no case for interference is made in the order of the NCDRC allowing the application for condonation of delay on merits."
13. Now both side submissions with relevant records are considered. In the impugned order in MP No.14/2023 in CC No.38/2022 passed by the District Commission, Puducherry, it was held that the President of District Commission, Puducherry assumed charges on 09.02.2023 and conducting proceedings from which, date limitation starts and there is no wrong in filing the reply version within 30 days from the date of proceedings commenced with full quorum.
14. Now on considering the reason stated in the impugned order, in general, sometime keeping the court vacant occurs due to administrative reason. In otherwise, though the post of President and Member are kept vacant, it cannot be said the court is closed. Infact, either one of the Member or Registrar is having duty to run the court without adjudication. It means the court is not closed at any time due to the vacant of the post of President. Therefore, we are 10 all of the opinion that though the post of President was kept vacant, it cannot be state that the court is not functioning. Otherwise, the reason said by the District Commission for accepting the reply version, also condoning the delay is not at all acceptable. Therefore, the opposite party is having duty to file the reply version within the stipulated period as stated in the Act.
15. In respect of other submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties in this appeal, it is true that on 04.03.2020, the Constitution Bench of our Apex Court has clearly held that the District Fora is not empowered to receive the reply version beyond the period of 45 days. Though the judgment relied by the petitioners/opposite parties in Civil Appeal No.7546 of 2021, dated 14.12.2021 cited supra is in his favour, from a cursory looking of the said judgment dated 14.12.2021, it is seen that the said Civil Appeal has been filed as against the order passed by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi before 04.03.2020, which is the date on which Constitution Bench rendered judgment. Hence the Hon'ble Apex Court finds it, it is not necessary to interfere with the order of the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
16. On the other hand, in the present case, application for condonation was filed and order under challenge was passed in the year 2023 and therefore, we are not in a position to follow the judgment relied on by the petitioners/opposite 11 parties. Dictum rendered by the Constitution Bench alone is to be taken into account as precedent.
17. Accordingly, after settling the proposition of law as District Commission is not having any power to receive the reply version beyond the period of 45 days, filing of the reply version beyond the said period cannot be entertained. In the light of the above discussion, the Appeal is allowed and the connected Miscellaneous Application is closed.
In the result, the appeal is allowed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous application in M.A.No.28/2023 is closed.
Dated this the 22nd day of August 2023.
Sd/-
(Justice R. PONGIAPPAN) PRESIDENT Sd/-
(DR. S. SUNDARAVADIVELU MEMBER Sd/-
(S. OUMASANGUERY) MEMBER