The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission exceeded its jurisdiction by condoning delay in filing written version beyond the statutory period, which is mandatory under the Consumer Protection Act.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)--The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the present petition is directed only against the respondent no.1 and no relief has been claimed against the respondent nos. 5 and 6 in the present petition, the adjudication of the present petition need not await the service of notice of the petition on the respondent nos. 5 and 6 and they be treated as deleted from the array of the parties as far as the present petition is concerned. It is ordered accordingly.

2. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 25.01.2019 passed by the learned National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the `learned Commission') in Consumer Complaint No.261/2018, Manish Kumar v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences & 6 Ors., allowing the respondent no. 1, which is the Opposite Party no.1 in the Consumer Complaint, to file its written version to the Complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that notice of the complaint was issued to the respondents, including the respondent no.1 on 07.02.2018. The respondent no. 1 was duly served with the notice on 12.04.2018. The statutory period for filing of the reply to the complaint as provided in Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), including the maximum condonable period of delay, had expired on 03.07.2018, when the complaint was listed before the learned Commission. In spite of the same, the learned Commission condoned the delay in filing of the reply by the respondent no. 1 and extended the time by a period of one week therefrom. The written version of the respondent no. 1 was, however, still not filed.

4. The complaint was then listed before the learned Commission on 31.08.2018, when recording the undertaking of the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 that the written version would be filed during the course of the day, the learned Commission was pleased to again condone the delay, directing that a cost of Rs. 25,000/- be paid to the complainant by way of a Demand Draft within a period of four weeks therefrom.

5. As neither the written version was filed nor the cost was paid, on an application of the petitioner, being IA 19048/2018, the learned Commission by its order dated 12.10.2018 was pleased to close the right of the respondent no. 1 to file its written version.

6. On 25.01.2019, however, by the Impugned Order, which is nonspeaking in nature the learned Commission has been pleased to condone the further delay in filing of the written version; reviewed its order dated 12.10.2018; and allowed further opportunity to the respondent no. 1 to file its written version.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the Commission, apart from being legally unsustainable on the ground that the learned Commission has no power to condone the delay once the statutory period including the maximum permissible period by which the delay in filing written version can be condoned has expired, does not record any reason for condoning the delay. She submits that the Impugned Order has also been passed without supplying a copy of the application, if any, by the respondent no. 1 seeking condonation of delay/review of the order dated 12.10.2018 filed by the respondent no. 1. In support of her