DATA MANAGEMENT SERVICE vs H.C. Gupta

HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellant, namely, M/s. Data Management Service and the respondent/complainant No. 1, Sh. H.C. Gupta. We have also gone through the impugned order dated 17.6.2002 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum-II) in Complaint Case No. 1037 of 1999, vide which the complaint was allowed and the appellant/O.P. was directed to take back the defective monitor from the complainant/respondent and refund Rs. 10,215/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of its purchase till payment. The appellant/O.P. was also directed to refund to the complainant Rs. 3,000/- as costs of JBL Speakers and was further directed to pay interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of purchase of the JBL Speakers till payment. Additionally, Rs. 2,000/- were awarded as compensation for mental and physical harassment and Rs. 500/- as expenses of litigation.

MR. Ashok Jain, Advocate appearing for the appellant made the only submission that the appellant could not file its defence version before the District Forum-II which struck off its defence and the complaint case has been adjudicated in the absence of any defence of the appellant. MR. Ashok Jain, Advocate has prayed that one opportunity of contesting the complaint case be allowed to the appellant so that the appellant is in a position to file its version in respect of the complaint case before the District Forum-II and contest the same on merit. The said prayer of the learned Counsel for the appellant is not acceptable to the respondent/complainant. Besides it, we may point out that the Zimini order of the file of the complaint case shows that the appellant/O.P. put in appearance before the District Forum-II on the first date of hearing i.e. 7.4.2000 though the appearance was through the Clerk of the Counsel. The District Forum-II adjourned the complaint case to 29.5.2000, which was the date fixed well after the total period of 45 days which is permissible under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short hereinafter to be referred as the C.P. Act). The crucial date for the appellant was, thus, 29.5.2000 to file the reply as the maximum time which could be allowed by the District Forum-II which is of 45 days had already expired and no written statement/reply had been filed by the appellant/O.P. It is interesting to find that even on such a crucial date i.e. 29.5.2000, neither the authorised representative of the appellant/O.P. nor its Counsel put in appearance before the District Forum-II and instead the Clerk of the Counsel again appeared before the District Forum-II and informed that the reply was not ready and adjournment was sought. The District Forum-II, however, rejected the prayer for adjournment on the ground that the O.P. had already availed of more than 45 days which is permissible period under the C.P. Act. The case was then listed for evidence of the complainant, which was led and the case came up for hearing on 29th April, 2002 when the complaint case was taken up in the presence of the complainant in person. None appeared for the O.P. in the Zimini order, it was mentioned that the defence of the O.P. has already been struck off. The case was listed for arguments on 22nd May, 2002 on which date it was adjourned to 17.6.2002. It was on 17th June, 2002 that the complaint case was taken up for hearing arguments. The complainant was present in person. The presence of Mr. Jain, Advocate for the O.P. has been recorded in the impugned order, though Mr. Ashok Jain, Advocate verbally stated before us that he was also not present. The District Forum-II, however, proceeded to adjudicate the complaint case under Rule 4(8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 and passed the impugned order on merit after taking into consideration the evidence brought to its notice by the complainant.

The provisions of Section 13 of the C.P. Act providing the maximum time-limit of 45 days for filing a reply, came up for consideration before the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. J.J. Merchant & Ors. v. Shrinath Chaturvedi, III (2002) CPJ 8 (SC)=IV (2002) SLT 714=2002 CTJ 757 (Supreme Court), and the Hon''ble Apex Court has held in para 21 of its judgment, inter alia, as under : "... For avoiding delay in disposal of cases, the procedure and the time-limit prescribed under the Act and the Rules is required to be strictly adhered and followed. If there is proper mind set to do so on the part of all concerned, delay in disposal to a large extent could be avoided."

The Hon''ble Supreme Court issued directions in para 37 and sub-para (b) is relevant in this regard, wherein, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has required the Hon''ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to take appropriate steps including : "(a) xxx xxx xxx (b) It would oversee that time-limit prescribed for filing defence version and disposal of complaints is strictly adhered to..."

THE time-limit has already been prescribed by Section 13 of the C.P. Act inasmuch as the maximum period of 45 days has been allowed to the O.P. to file its version to the averments made in the complaint case. In our considered opinion the submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr. Ashok Jain, Advocate to allow one more opportunity to the appellant to file the written statement before the District Forum-II to the complaint case would run counter to the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case Dr. J.J. Merchant & Ors. v. Shrinath Chaturvedi (supra). THE opportunity to contest cannot be allowed only on the ground of generosity. THE learned Counsel for the appellant was unable to satisfy us that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the reply to the complaint case within the prescribed period of limitation. THE casual manner in which the appellant treated the complaint case is evident from the fact that on two dates of hearing i.e. 7.4.2000 and 29.5.2000, the appellant did not depute any authorised agent and did not ensure whether the Counsel engaged, appeared and made a request before the District-II but instead the Clerk of the Counsel appeared. We find no merit in this appeal. The District Forum-II has rightly proceeded to consider and decide the complaint case and adjudicate the same on the basis of the evidence brought to its notice by the respondent/complainant and the impugned order has not been shown to be contrary to such evidence brought on record. The appeal lacks merit and is dismissed but under the circumstance of the case, we pass no orders regarding the costs of appeal. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charges. Appeal dismissed.