M/S. AGARWAL CONSTRUCTION CO. vs GREEN POINT CHSL HAVING OFFICE AT KURAR

This revision is directed against the concurrent finding of the Foras below closing the right of the petitioner/opposite party to file written statement.

Shorn off unnecessary details, facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that the District Forum, Mumbai Suburban District issued the notice of the consumer complaint filed by the complainant to the respondent builder. The petitioner was served with the notice of the complaint on 10.11.2015. The petitioner, however, failed to file written statement within the stipulated period of limitation i.e. 30 days from the date of service of notice of complaint. No application for extension for 15 days period which is permissible was filed. Ultimately, the petitioner sought permission of the District Forum to file is response to the complaint on 8.1.2016. The District Forum in view of the judgment 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 disallowed the request of the petitioner seeking permission to file written statement and closed his right to file written statement.

Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum the petitioner approached the State Commission, Maharashtra in revision. The State Commission, Maharashtra did not find merit in the revision petition. Revision petition was accordingly dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that both the Fora below have failed to appreciate that there was justifiable reasons for failure of the petitioner to file written statement within the stipulated period of 45 days from the date of service of notice of the complaint (inclusive of 15 days extension which is permissible.)

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."

On reading of the above, it is clear that Consumer Fora has no power to extend the time for filing of written statement beyond 45 days of the service of notice of complaint. As the Fora below have passed order in terms of the order of Hon''ble Supreme Court, we find no reason to interfere in the order in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Revision petition is dismissed.