DR. RABINDRA NATH JANA vs ALPANA BERA SASMAL & ORS.

Appellant being aggrieved of the following order of the State Commission has preferred this appeal: -

"Ld. Advocates for the Complainant and the OP No.1 are present. The Misc. Application being No. MA/931/2016 is taken up for hearing. By this application the OP No.1 has prayed for condonation of delay in filing the written version. Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that there is no statutory provision for condoning the delay in filing the written version. The OP No.1 appeared on 29.3.2016, but did not file written version within the statutory period of time. The date has been fixed on 11.11.2016 for filing evidence on affidavit by the Complainant. At this stage, the prayer for condonation of delay in filing the written version cannot be accepted. The Misc. Application is thus disposed of. To date, i.e. 11.11.2016 for filing evidence on affidavit by the Complainant."

Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the State Commission has committed a grave error in dismissing the application of the appellant/opposite party No.1 for condonation of delay in filing of the written statement after the expiry of 45 days of service of the notice i.e. the period of limitation provided under Section 13 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 inclusive of 15 days extension which can be granted by the Consumer Fora. It is submitted that the State Commission did not even appreciate that the refusal of prayer for condonation of delay would amount to grave injustice to the opposite party No.1. It is also contended that the State Commission also ignored the judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1083-1084/2016 in the matter of M/s Bhasin Infotech & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s Grand Venezia Buyers Association (Regd.) wherein Hon''ble Supreme Court permitted the opposite party to file reply to the complaint subject to cost to be paid to the complainant and acceptance of the same by the complainant.

Three Judges Bench of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. SLP (C) No.2833 of 2014 & SLP (C) Nos.11257-11258 of 2014 decided on 4.12.2015 had an occasion to interpret the scope of period of limitation under Section 13 (1) & (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 wherein the Supreme Court has categorically held as under: -

"17. We are, therefore, of the view that the judgment delivered in the case of Dr. J J Merchant ( supra) holds the field and therefore, we reiterate the view that the District Forum can grant a further period of 15 days to the opposite party for filing his version or reply and not beyond that.

There is one more reason to follow the law laid down in the case of Dr. J J Merchant ( supra). Dr. J J Merchant ( supra) was decided in 2002, whereas Kailash (supra) was decided in 2005. As per law laid down by this Court, while deciding the case of Kailsh (supra), this Court ought to have respected the view expressed in Dr. J J Merchant ( supra) as the judgment delivered in the case of Dr. J J Merchant ( supra) was earlier in point of time. The aforesaid legal position cannot be ignored by us and therefore, we are of the opinion that the view expressed in Dr. J J Merchant (supra) should be followed."

In view of the above, Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction to extend the period of limitation of 30 days provided under Section 13 (2) of the Act beyond a further period of 15 days. Admittedly, the written statement was sought to be filed in the State Commission after the expiry of 45 days from the date of service of notice of the complaint alongwith the application for condonation of delay. The State Commission in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. (supra) was fully justified in declining to condone the delay in filing of the written statement. Thus, we do not find any merit in the appeal. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Since we have disposed of the appeal, interim applications filed alongwith the appeal need no finding.