State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Paytm Payment Bank Ltd. vs Namita Bajaj & Anr. on 29 November, 2023
PAYTM PAYMENT BANK LTD. V. NAMITA BAJAJ 29.11.2023 RP NO.53/2023 The present revision petition been filed on 10.08.2023 impugning the order dated 12.04.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VII, (South West), in CC No.141/2021 vide which right of the Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2 to file reply/written statement has been closed. The order reads as under:
"Counsel for OP No.2 is placing on record proof of receipt of the reply dated 25.02.22. The complaint copy was received by OP-2 on 23.11.21. Clearly, the reply is not within time as per statutory provision of 45 days as given under the CPA Act and reiterated by the landmark judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (2020) 5 SCC 757 by the Constitution Bench of Hobn'ble Supreme Court held on 04th March 2020.
Hence, the defence of OP -2 is closed henceforth and reply shall not be taken on record and shall be returned back to OP -2. ...."
To resolve this issue, we deem it appropriate to refer to Section 38 of the Consumer Protection, 2019 which provides as follows:-
"38.Procedure on admission of complaint...
(2) Where the complaint relates to any goods, the District Commission shall, -
(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 Page 1 of 3 PAYTM PAYMENT BANK LTD. V. NAMITA BAJAJ 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..."
From the aforesaid provision, it is clear that the written statement should be filed within a period of thirty days or such extended period not exceeding fifteen days as may be granted by the District Commission. On perusal of record before us, it is clear that the copy of the complaint was supplied to Petitioner/ OP No.2 on 23.11.2021 and the written statement has been filed by the Petitioner/OP No.2 on 25.05.2022. Therefore, the written statement has neither been filed within the prescribed period of thirty day nor within the extended period of 15 days under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
We need to answer whether this Commission/District Commission has the power to extend time for filing response to the complaint beyond the period of fifteen days in addition to thirty days as provided under the Act. To deal with this issue, we deem it appropriate to refer the New India Assurance Vs Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2020) 5 SCC,757, wherein the Apex Court held as under:-
"62. ......district Forum has no power to extend the time for filing the response to the complaint beyond the time 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 receipt of the notice accompanied with the complaint by the opposite party, and not mere receipt of the notice of the complaint."Page 2 of 3
PAYTM PAYMENT BANK LTD. V. NAMITA BAJAJ Applying the above settled law, we are of the view that neither this Commission nor the District Commission has power to extend the time for filing the written statement beyond the period of fifteen days in addition to thirty days as provided under the Act.
Reverting back to the material available on record, we find that the Petitioner/OP No.2 has neither denied the receipt of complaint on 23.11.2021 nor the filing of written statement on 25.05.2022. Hence, there is not an iota of doubt that the same is filed beyond the period of forty-five days as stipulated under the Act.
In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered view that this revision petition is devoid of merits. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 12.04.2023. Hence, the revision petition stands dismissed.
The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties. Thereafter, file be consigned to Record Room.
(Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal) President (Pinki) Member (Judicial) (J.P. Agrawal) Member Page 3 of 3