MATADEVI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., & Antr. vs SUNIL & 3 ORS.

Challenge in this First Appeal, under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), by a real estate developer and its Directors, Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 respectively in the Complaint is to the order dated 26.8.2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench, Aurangabad (for short "the State Commission") in CC/04/16. By the impugned order, the State Commission has declined to grant further time to the Appellants to file their respective Written Versions on the ground that statutory period of 45 days, from the date of service of notice in the Complaint on the Appellants was over.

Upon service of notice on the Respondents, a reply to the Appeal has been received from Respondents No.1 and 2, the Complainants, by post. Respondents No.3 and 4 are represented through their counsel.

Accordingly, I have heard learned counsel appearing for the Appellants and have taken into consideration the reply filed on behalf of the Complainants.

Questioning the legality of the impugned order, it is strenuously urged by learned counsel appearing for the Appellants that the State Commission has committed a serious error in misconstruing the provisions of Section 13(a) of the Act. It is argued that in terms of the said Section, an Opposite Party is entitled to file its written version within 45 days from the date of admission of the Complaint, whereas, in the instant case, the State Commission has proceeded on the basis that the said period of 45 days is to be computed from the date of service of show cause notice on the Opposite Parties. It is also urged by the learned Counsel that even assuming for the sake of argument that the view taken by the State Commission is correct, yet on the facts of the present case, going by the date of dispatch of the notices in the Complaint to the Opposite Parties on 18.7.2016, the period of 45 days for filing the written version was not over on 26.8.2016, when the impugned order came to be passed.

I find substance in the submissions made by the learned Counsel. It is evident from the record that the envelopes containing the notices were despatched by the post-office on 18.7.2016 and therefore it can be safely inferred that although the envelopes had been received back unserved, but the service of notice could not, in any event, be before the said date. That being so, the statutory period of 45 days was not over when the impugned order was passed either from the date of despatch of the notice or from the date of admission of the Complaint, as stipulated in the afore-noted Section.

In view of the above, the Appeal is allowed; the impugned order is set aside with the direction that if the Appellants file their respective Written Versions within 30 days from today, the same shall be taken on record and the Complaint shall be proceeded with further in accordance with law.

The Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.