Strict adherence to the prescribed time-limits for filing defense versions and disposal of complaints is essential, as established by the Supreme Court, and requests for additional opportunities to contest cannot be allowed solely on the ground of generosity.

Mr. Justice K.K. Srivastava, President—Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant, namely, M/s. Data Management Service and the respondent/complainant No. 1, Sh. H.C. Gupta. We have also gone through the impugned order dated 17.6.2002 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum-II) in Complaint Case No. 1037 of 1999, vide which the complaint was allowed and the appellant/O.P. was directed to take back the defective monitor from the complainant/respondent and refund Rs. 10,215/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of its purchase till payment. The appellant/O.P. was also directed to refund to the complainant Rs. 3,000/- as costs of JBL Speakers and was further directed to pay interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of purchase of the JBL Speakers till payment. Additionally, Rs. 2,000/- were awarded as compensation for mental and physical harassment and Rs. 500/- as expenses of litigation.

2. Mr. Ashok Jain, Advocate appearing for the appellant made the only submission that the appellant could not file its defence version before the District Forum-II which struck off its defence and the complaint case has been adjudicated in the absence of any defence of the appellant. Mr. Ashok Jain, Advocate has prayed that one opportunity of contesting the complaint case be allowed to the appellant so that the appellant is in a position to file its version in respect of the complaint case before the District Forum-II and contest the same on merit. The said prayer of the learned Counsel for the appellant is not acceptable to the respondent/complainant. Besides it, we may point out that the Zimini order of the file of the complaint case shows that the appellant/O.P. put in appearance before the District Forum-II on the first date of hearing i.e. 7.4.2000 though the appearance was through the Clerk of the Counsel. The District Forum-II adjourned the complaint case to 29.5.2000, which was the date fixed well after the total period of 45 days which is permissible under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short hereinafter to be referred as the C.P. Act). The crucial date for the appellant was, thus, 29.5.2000 to file the reply as the maximum time which could be allowed by the District Forum-II which is of 45 days had already expired and no written statement/reply had been filed by the appellant/O.P.

3. It is interesting to find that even on such a crucial date i.e. 29.5.2000, neither the authorised representative of the appellant/O.P. nor its Counsel put in appearance before the District Forum-II and instead the Clerk of the Counsel again appeared before the District Forum-II and informed that the reply was not ready and adjournment was sought. The District Forum-II, however, rejected the prayer for adjournment on the ground that the O.P. had already availed of more than 45 days which is permissible period under the C.P. Act. The case was then listed for evidence of the complainant, which was led and the case came up for hearing on 29th April, 2002 when the complaint case was taken up in the presence of the complainant in person. None appeared for the O.P. in the Zimini order, it was mentioned that the defence of the O.P. has already been struck off. The case was listed for arguments on 22nd May, 2002 on which date it was adjourned to 17.6.2002. It was on 17th June, 2002 that the complaint case was taken up for hearing arguments. The complainant was present in person. The presence of Mr. Jain, Advocate for the O.P. has been recorded in the impugned order, though Mr. Ashok Jain, Advocate verbally stated before us that he was also not present. The District Forum-II, however, proceeded to adjudicate the complaint case under Rule 4(8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 and passed the impugned order on merit after taking into consideration the evidence brought to its notice by the complainant.

4. The provisio