National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Superintending Engineer, Housefed & ... vs Anu Singla on 6 February, 2017
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 1095 OF 2016 (Against the Order dated 08/08/2016 in Complaint No. 21/2016 of the State Commission Punjab) 1. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, HOUSEFED & ANR. HOUSEFED, PUNJAB SCO NO 150 151-152 SECTOR 34A, CHANDIGARH 2. MANAGING DIRECTOR HOUSEFED, PUNJAB SCO NO 150-151-152 SECTOR 34A CHANDIGARH ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. ANU SINGLA WIFE OF SH. N.K.SINGLA. R/O. HIG 147 SECTOR 48-C MOHALI ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE DR. B.C. GUPTA,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. PREM NARAIN,MEMBER For the Appellant : Mr. D.V. Sharma, Sr. Advocate Mr. Sukhbeer Singh, Advocate For the Respondent :
Dated : 06 Feb 2017 ORDER PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER
This first appeal has been filed under section 19 read with section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned interim order dated 08.08.2016, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in consumer complaint No. 21/2016, vide which, the Appellant/OP has been denied the opportunity to file their written reply to the consumer complaint, filed by the present respondent on the ground that the appellant/OP failed to file the said reply within the period stipulated under section 13 of the Act.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant has been heard in detail. The record of the State Commission was also called and has been examined.
3. The respondent/complainant Anu Singla filed the consumer complaint No. 21/2016 against the appellant/OP, alleging delay and deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/OP in handing over the flat booked by her in their housing project. She demanded physical possession of the flat in good condition alongwith compensation, or to refund the money deposited by her alongwith interest. The said complaint was heard by the State Commission on 03.02.2016 when the representative of the complainant was present. The complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the appellant/OP for 28.03.2016.
4. A perusal of the record of the State Commission indicates that in pursuance of the above order, a notice dated 08.02.2016 was issued to the appellant/OP, stating that they may file written version within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice. Admittedly, the notice was received by the OPs and a counsel filed power of attorney on their behalf before the State Commission. A perusal of the order dated 28.03.2016 reveals that an application under section 5 read with section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was also filed before the State Commission. On the next date of hearing, i.e., 05.05.2016, the State Commission observed that if the date of appearance of the counsel for OP, i.e., 28.03.2016 is taken to be the date of service of notice, the OPs were required to file their written reply under section 13 of the Act within a period of 30 days which ended on 27.04.2016. However, as laid down in section 13, an extension of time of 15 days was granted to the OPs to file the reply and they were asked to file the same by 12.05.2016. On 08.08.2016, the OPs filed a Miscellaneous Application No. 9019/20165, seeking time to file written reply. It was observed by the State Commission that the OPs had failed to file the written reply within the stipulated period under section 13 of the Act and hence, their reply could not be taken on record after the expiry of prescribed period. The learned State Commission also observed that the argument taken by the counsel for the OPs that they could not file their written statement, because of the pendency of the application under section 5/8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, was not tenable, as the pendency of their application did not debar them from filing written reply to the complaint. Being aggrieved against the said order, the OP is before this Commission by way of the present first appeal.
5. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the reply filed by them should be ordered to be taken on record, because they could not file the same due to the pendency of the application under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The learned counsel has drawn attention to an order passed by this Commission on 07.01.2014 in Revision Petition No. 2386/2008, "Sh. D. Vilas Rao, Dy. Manager (Legal) vs. Sh. Amit Kumar Sharma", saying that they should have been given the opportunity to file written statement and lead evidence in their favour after the disposal of application under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
6. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.
7. The matter has been duly considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd." [Civil Appeal No. 10941 - 10942 of 2013 passed on 04.12.2015] and it was held that the time permissible under section 13 of the Act, for filing the written version could not be extended further. In the present case, the complaint was duly admitted on 03.02.2016 and a notice of the admitted complaint was sent to the OPs on 08.02.2016 with a clear direction to file written statement within a period of 30 days from the date of the service of the notice. The OPs made appearance before the State Commission on 28.03.2016 but still, they failed to file the written statement, even within the extended period of 45 days. Respectfully following the judgement given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd." (supra), no further time than that permissible under section 13 of the Act can be granted to the OPs. There is, therefore, no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned interim order passed by the State Commission. The present appeal is, therefore, without any merit and the same is ordered to be dismissed and the order passed by the State Commission is upheld.
...................... DR. B.C. GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... PREM NARAIN MEMBER