SUNIL S/O. DAYASHANKAR PANDEY vs DR. SHAMA SHIVNARAYAN SINGH TOMAR

This first appeal has been filed under section 19 read with Section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 17.03.2016, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") in Consumer Complaint No. CC/14/15, Dr. Shama Shivnarayan Singh Tomar vs. Sunil D Pandey, against the interim impugned order, vide which, the said Commission refused to grant permission to the appellant/opposite party (OP) to file their written version to the consumer complaint. The said Commission, vide their earlier order dated 18.06.2015 had directed to proceed without the written version of the OP and vide impugned order dated 17.03.2016, they refused to set aside the earlier order of 18.06.2015.

The facts of the case are that the respondent Dr. Shama Shivnarayan Singh Tomar filed the consumer complaint no. CC/14/15 before the State Commission, saying that the OP/appellant entered into an agreement with them for the sale of certain plot, but the OP had failed to get the sale deed executed in their favour, even after the receipt of entire amount from them. The State Commission issued notice to the OP/appellant and they put in appearance before them on 14.07.2014 through Mr. Maukharkar, Advocate, but the written version was not filed by the OP, even after the grant of several opportunities to do so. It is the case of the OP/appellant that they engaged the services of another Advocate, who filed application for permission to file written version and to set aside the order dated 18.06.2015, passed by the State Commission. Vide impugned order dated 17.03.2016, the State Commission refused to allow the OP/appellant to file the written version and to set aside the earlier order dated 18.06.2015. The present appeal has, therefore, been filed, challenging the said order of the State Commission.

During hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant admitted that the service of the notice sent by the State Commission had been duly affected upon them, in response to which, the Advocate, Mr. Maukharkar appeared before the said Commission, but he did not file the written version before the said Commission. The OP had, therefore, engaged the services of another Advocate and requested for the grant of permission to file written version, which should have been allowed by the State Commission, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case.

The main issue for consideration in the matter is whether the OP/appellant can be allowed to file their written version even after the expiry of statutory period as prescribed for the purpose under section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The matter has been examined in detail in an order passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 10941-42/2013, titled '' New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (Pvt.) Ltd .'', dated 04.12.2015 and it has been laid down that a party cannot be allowed to file their written version, after the statutory period of 30 days, extendable by 15 days, as prescribed under section 13 of the Act, is over. In the present case, it is clear that due notice of the proceedings in the consumer complaint was received by the State commission, but they failed to produce the written version within the statutory time permissible under law. The order passed by the State Commission, therefore, is strictly in accordance with law. It is held, therefore, that there is no merit in this appeal and the same is ordered to be dismissed and the impugned order dated 17.03.2016 of the State Commission upheld. There shall be no order as to costs.