RUDRA BUILDWELL CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. & ANR. vs DHARAMPAL

This appeal has been filed, challenging the interim order dated 22.02.2016, passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ''the State Commission''), by which, the present appellant/OP/builder was ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte. It has been stated in the said order that the appellant/OP did not appear before the State Commission on 22.02.2016 despite service. The State Commission also directed the complainant to file ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit within four weeks alongwith the written arguments. A notice of the memo of appeal was sent to the respondent/complainant, who put in appearance through counsel. The learned counsel for both the parties were heard.

It is contended by the appellant/OP/builder in the grounds of appeal that after issuing of notice by the State Commission in consumer complaint no. 182/2015, Dharm Pal vs. Rudra Buildwell Constructions Pvt. Ltd., they were duly served with the notice sent by the State Commission. However, a lady employee of the OP office, who received the notice at the reception, resigned from the office and hence, the said notice remained unattended. When the said notice was found by the new employee on 26.02.2016, the date fixed by the State Commission had already passed. The non-appearance of the appellant before the State Commission was neither intentional nor wilful. The learned counsel for the appellant stated that the ex-parte order made against them by the State Commission on 22.02.2016 should be set aside. The learned counsel for the respondent, however, stated that the order passed by the State Commission was in accordance with law.

I have examined the material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me.

It has been admitted by the appellant themselves that the notice sent by the State Commission for appearance on 22.02.2016 was duly served upon them in their office. In case, their employee at the reception counter had resigned their service, the notice could have been seen by some other employee and further action taken. In any case, under the provisions of Section 13(1)A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a time period of 30 days or such extended period not exceeding 15 days as may be granted by the Consumer Fora has been laid down for the submission of the written submissions. As per the order passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (Pvt.) Ltd. , decided on 04.12.2015, a maximum time of 45 days only is permissible for filing the written version.

Following the above referred judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, the complainant cannot be allowed to file their written version in the complaint, if a time of 45 days has already elapsed since the service of the appellant. However, in the interest of justice, the complainant is allowed to participate in proceedings before the State Commission in accordance with law. This First Appeal is, therefore, disposed of with the direction stated above.