M/S. COLLAGE GROUP INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. & ORS. vs SWARAN SINGH BHARA & ANR.

This first appeal has been filed u/s 19 read with 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned interim order dated 11.05.2016, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ''the State Commission''), vide which, they did not allow the appellants to file their written statement to the consumer complaint, saying that the same was not filed within the period prescribed u/s 13(i)(a) of the Act.

There is a delay of 2 days in filing this appeal. Considering the plea taken in the application for condonation of delay, the said delay is ordered to be condoned. The complainants/respondents in the present appeal filed consumer complaint No. 11/2016 against the petitioner M/s. Collage Group Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and other respondents, seeking refund of the amount of 24,06,621/- deposited with them for booking an apartment, alongwith interest and compensation. The State Commission issued notice of the complaint to all the respondents including the present appellants as admitted by them in the memo of appeal. Sh. A.K. Kaundal, Advocate filed power of attorney on behalf of OP-1 before the State Commission on 08.03.2016. He also filed memo of appearance on behalf of OP-2 to 5 and 8. The matter was thereafter listed for 11.05.2016, when Sh. A.K. Kaundal filed his power of attorney for OP-2 to 5 and 8 as well. On the same date, he filed reply to the consumer complaint before the State Commission, but the said Commission refused to take the same on record, taking the plea that the same had been filed beyond the permissible period prescribed u/s 13(1)(a) of the Act. The State Commission observed in their order as follows:- "OP Nos.1 to 5 & 8 did not file the written reply to the complaint as per the time provided under Section 13(1)(a) of the Act. Sh. A. K. Kaundal, Advocate is present. He says that reply on behalf of OPs No.1 to 5 & 8 be taken on record but according to Section 13(1)(a) they were required to file written reply within a period of 30 days or within an extended time of 15 days with the permission of Commission. After expiry of 30 days, he did not move any application for extension of time even that time is over. However, OP Nos.1 to 5 & 8 failed to file the written reply within a period of 45 days. Therefore, at this stage written reply cannot be taken on record in view of judgment passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Courte in case of NIAC Limited versus Multi Purpose Cold Store Pvt. Ltd. , reported in 15 (6) RAG 551. "

During hearing before me, the Ld. Counsel for the appellants stated that the State Commission should have allowed them to file reply to the appeal before them because on 11.05.2016, the case had been listed for appearance of the respondent No. 6 & 7 and also for filing vakalatnama on behalf of OP-2 to 5 and 8.

As indicated in the order passed by the State Commission, the Hon''ble Supreme Court in their order, passed in Civil Appeal No. 10941 - 10942 / 2013 on 04.12.2015, " New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold-storage Private Limited " [as reported in 15(6) RAG 551], have enunciated the legal position on the issue, saying that a written statement of defence has to be filed within a period of 30 days or within the extended period of 45 days as laid down under section 13(1) (a) of the Act. In the present case, the State Commission have observed that the appellant did not move even an application for extension of time by 15 days as provided under section 13(1)(a) in the Act. In view of this position, it is held that there is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the State Commission, vide which they refused to take the written statement on record on the plea that it was filed beyond the prescribed period of time. This appeal is, therefore, without any merit and the same is ordered to be dismissed and the interim order dated 11.05.2016, passed by the State Commission is upheld.