State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr.A.K. Pathak vs Shalu Raikwar on 31 August, 2020
Daily Order M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL REVISION PETITION NO. 61 OF 2019 DR. A. K. PATHAK & ANR VS SHALU RAIKWAR & ANOTHER O R D E R S H E E T DATE OF ORDER ORDER WITH SIGNATURE ORDER OF THE REGISTRAR ON OFFICE NOTING 31.08.2020 THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING Ms. Anita Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioners. None for the respondents.
This revision petition is filed against the order dated 07.03.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission No.2 Jabalpur (For short District Commission) in C.C.No.69/2018 whereby the petitioners/opposite party no.1 and 3's right to file reply has been closed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the District Commission has committed gross error in closing their right to file reply to complaint and in not giving opportunity to the petitioners in the above regard. She submits that the impugned order which suffers irregularity be set-aside and the petitioners be permitted to file reply to the complaint before the District Commission.
-2-After careful perusal of the evidence available on record of the District Commission we observe that the notice of the complaint was served on the petitioners on 12.03.2018.
The Forum in the ordersheet dated 03.05.2018 has noted that the opposite party no. 1 and 3 i.e. the petitioners are not present despite service of notice on them.
Thereafter the District Commission granted several opportunities to the petitioners for filing reply on various occasions before closing their right to file reply vide order dated 07.03.2019.
Recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage vide judgment dated 04.03.2020 has held as under:
"That the District Forum has no power to extend the time for filing the response to the complaint beyond the period 15 days in addition to 30 days as is envisaged under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act; and that the commencing point of limitation of 30 days underSection 13 of the Consumer -3- Protection Act would be from the date of receipt of notice accompanied with the complaint by the opposite party and not mere receipt of the notice of the complaint."
Therefore, in the light of the legal position cleared by the Apex Court we are of the considered view that the District Forum has no power to extend the time for filing reply to complaint beyond 15 days in addition to 30 days as envisaged under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (For short Act of 1986).
Thus, we reach a conclusion that the District Commission has committed no illegality or irregularity in closing the right of the petitioners for filing reply to the complaint vide impugned order.
Therefore, in our considered view, this Revision Petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.
The District Forum is directed to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. Stay granted in the matter shall stand vacated.
(Dr. Monika Malik) (Prabhat Parashar) Presiding Member Member