State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Keerti Kumar Sharma & Anr. vs S.V. Megastructure Ltd.& Anr. on 6 September, 2024
KEERTI KUMAR SHARMA VS S.V. MEGASTRUCTURES LTD. AND ORS.
06.09.2024 Present: Mr. Anuj Handa (Enrl. No. D/705/2005, Ph. No. 9151550105) and Mr. Bhuwan Raj Seth (Enrl. No. D/3279/23), counsel for the Complainant.
Mr. Tarjit Singh and Mr. Abhiraj sigh (Ph. No. 8930103190) counsel for the opposite party.
IA-1999/23 IN CC-896/16 A perusal of the order dated 05.07.2024 reflects that a typographical error crept into the said order. It is mentioned that the present IA 1999/2023 was filed by the Complainant; however, the record clearly indicates that the present IA was filed on behalf of the Opposite Party no.1 for the condonation of delay in filing written statement. Additionally, the order also incorrectly states that a reply to the present IA has been filed, whereas the Complainant has not filed a reply till date.
Therefore, we hereby rectify the order dated 05.07.2024 and direct all parties to read it as follows: the present IA 1999/2023 was filed on behalf of the Opposite Party no.1 and the reply to the same has not yet been filed by the Complainant.
Further, vide this order, we shall dispose of IA-1999/2023 filed on behalf of the Opposite Party no.1 seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statement.
The present IA-1999/2023 has been filed by the Opposite Party No. 1 seeking condonation of delay on the grounds that the office of the counsels of the Opposite Party No. 1 received the notice along with a copy of the complaint on 30.04.2023 and subsequently the copy of 1 the complaint was given to the office of the counsels representing Opposite Party No. 1. Thereafter, all the relevant documents related to the present complaint were compiled by Opposite Party No. 1 and sent to the office of the counsels. The process of compiling these documents relevant to the present matter took substantial time and effort. The counsel for Opposite Party No. 1 further submitted that immediately after receiving the aforementioned documents, they prepared a draft of written statement. The said draft was then sent to the office of Opposite Party No. 1 for comments and approval and changes were made in the written statement. Consequently, the written statement was filed before this commission on 02.06.2023. Therefore, the delay of 9 days in filing the written statement was neither deliberate nor intentional.
The present complaint was filed on 08.08.2016, alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party no1. Thereafter, vide order dated 10.05.2022 fresh notice was issued to the Opposite Parties through registered post and speed post along with the copy of complaint. The Opposite Party no.1 filed the written statement on 02.06.2023.
To adjudicate this issue, we deem it appropriate to refer to Section 13(1)(a) r/w Section 18(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which provides as under:
"Section 13(1): The district forum shall, on receipt of a complaint, if it relates to any goods-
1(a) refer a copy of the complaint to the opposite party mentioned in the complainant 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;"2
Section 18 (1): The provisions relating of sections 12, 13, and 14 and the rules made there under for the disposal of complaint by the district forum shall, with such modification as such necessary, be applicable to the disposal of disputes by state commission:"
Perusal of the aforesaid statutory position reflects that the written version/written statement against the consumer complaint should be preferred within a period of thirty days or extended period of fifteen days as granted by it, from the date of receipt of the copy of the Complaint along with notice.
On perusal of application, we find that it is evident from the proof of the service filed by the Complainant that the Opposite Party No.1 received the copy of the complaint alongwith the notice on 22.04.2023 and the written statement was filed on 02.06.2023 i.e. after the stipulated period of 30 days but within the extended period of 15 days provided under Section 38(2)(a) r/w Section 49 (1).
Further, it is well settled position that if the written statement filed beyond the period of 30 days but with the extended period of 15 days, it is upon the discretion of the adjudicating Court to condone the delay if sufficient cause has been provided by the Opposite Party no.1.
In order to condone the delay, the Opposite Party has to satisfy this Commission that there was sufficient cause for filing the written statement after the stipulated period. The term 'sufficient cause' has been explained by the Apex Court in Basawaraj and Ors. vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer reported in AIR 2014 SC 746. The relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced as under:-
"9. Sufficient cause is the cause for which Defendant could not be blamed for his absence. The meaning of 3 the word "sufficient" is "adequate" or "enough", inasmuch as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, the word "sufficient"
embraces no more than that which provides a platitude, which when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a case, duly examined from the view point of a reasonable standard of a cautious man. In this context, "sufficient cause" means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party has "not acted diligently" or "remained inactive". However, the facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the Court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the Court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously. The applicant must satisfy the Court that he was prevented by any "sufficient cause" from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the Court should not allow the application for condonation of delay. The court has to examine whether the mistake is bona fide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose." From the aforesaid dicta of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is clear that 'sufficient cause' means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part and applicant must satisfy the Court that he was prevented by any "sufficient cause" from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the Court should not allow the application for condonation of delay.
We further deem it appropriate to refer to Lingeswaran Etc. Versus Thirunagalingam in Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 2054- 4 2055/2022 decided on 25.02.2022, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: -
"5. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. Once it was found even by the learned trial Court that delay has not been properly explained and even there are no merits in the application for condonation of delay, thereafter, the matter should rest there and the condonation of delay application was required to be dismissed. The approach adopted by the learned trial Court that, even after finding that, in absence of any material evidence it cannot be said that the delay has been explained and that there are no merits in the application, still to condone the delay would be giving a premium to a person who fails to explain the delay and who is guilty of delay and laches. At this stage, the decision of this Court in the case of Popat Bahiru Goverdhane v. Land Acquisition Officer, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 765 is required to be referred to. In the said decision, it is observed and held that the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the Court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same."
Reverting to the material available on record, we find that the copy of the complaint along with the notice, was received by the Opposite Party No.1 on 22.04.2023 and the written statement has been filed on 02.06.2023. Further, the statutory period for filing the written statement in the present case has expired on 22.05.2023 and the process of compiling documents relevant to the present matter took substantial time and effort. Accordingly, the written statement was prepared and the draft was circulated for review and 5 consideration. However, such occurrences are commonplace in legal matters and could have been managed more efficiently. Furthermore, there is no indication that Opposite Party no.1 made serious efforts to file the written statement within the stipulated period of 30 days. Therefore, in absence of any document or any other evidence, no presumption can be raised in this regard.
Relying on the above settled law and considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Opposite Party for the delay, according to us, the Opposite Party no.1 has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent sufficient reasons to condone such delay. Resultantly, the written statement filed by the Opposite Party No.1 cannot be taken on record.
Accordingly, the IA-1999/2023 filed by the Opposite Party No.1 seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statement stands disposed of as dismissed.
Complainant is directed to file the Evidence by way of affidavit within four weeks from today and advance copies of the same be supplied to the Opposite Parties.
All parties shall file their short-written arguments alongwith judgments, if any, being relied by them within four weeks and advance copies of the same be exchanged with each other It is clarified that the parties shall complete their pleading(s) on their own responsibility and if the same is/are not filed within the stipulated time period, it will be assumed that the respective party is not interested in filing the relevant document(s)/pleading(s) and the right to file the same shall be deemed to be closed.
List the matter on 28.11.2024 for final arguments and disposal.
6(Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal) President (Pinki) Member (Judicial) LR-ZA 7