PUNARVASU CHIKITSALAY & ORS. vs MANDAR SHARAD AKATNAL, & ORS.

This appeal is directed against the order of the State Commission Maharashtra dated 10.8.2016 which reads as under: -

" Advocate Shri Satpute present for the complainant. Complaint was admitted on 15.4.215. Notice was issued after admission. Opponent appeared on 16.9.2015 through Advocate Smt. Kalyani Pathak. Till today opponent has not filed written version. Advocate for the opponent submitted that one application for stay of the proceedings was moved. However, that will not give more time to the opponent more than 45 days to file written version. Hence, matter to proceed without written version of opponent. Adjourned for filing of evidence of complainant. Adjourned to 16.11.2016."

Learned counsel for the appellant state the impugned order of the State Commission is not sustainable for the reason that the issue pertaining to the limitation for filing written statement under Section 13 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been referred to the Larger Bench of Hon''ble Supreme Court and the aforesaid aspect has not been considered by the State Commission.

The issue raised by the appellant/opposite party is no more res-integra. 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 the limitation provided for filing of written statement under Section 13 (2) of the Act is 30 days which can be extended only for a further period of 15 days in case of a proper explanation for delay. Merely because the issue has been referred to the Larger Bench, we cannot find fault with the order of the State Commission which is based upon the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court. Thus, we find no reason to interfere in the impugned order in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.