IMPORTANT POINT
Permissible time of 30 days, extendable to 45 days, could not be extended by Commission.

Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member—The appellant, HDFC Ergo G.I.C. Ltd., has filed this appeal, challenging the order dated 10.03.2016, passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”) in Consumer Complaint No. C-148/2015, vide which, the right of the appellant/OP to file the written statement before the State Commission was closed, relying upon the 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.

2. The notice of the appeal was given to the respondent, who entered appearance through counsel. The learned counsel for both the parties were heard.

3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the main issue in question as to whether the time permissible under Section 13(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act to the OPs to file their written statement, could be extended or not, had been referred by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to a five Member Bench. The present appeal, therefore, deserves to be accepted and the appellant should be given an opportunity to file written statement before the State Commission, subject to the conditions imposed, if any. The learned counsel has referred to the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kailash vs. Nanhku & Ors., 2005 (4) SCC 480, in support of his arguments.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent stated that in view of the latest judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, passed on 04.12.2015, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (Pvt.) Ltd. (supra), the permissible time of 30 days, extendable to 45 days, could not be extended by this Commission.

5. While it is true that the matter stands referred to a larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, but the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (Pvt.) Ltd., on 04.12.2015, very much continues to be in force. This Commission, therefore, is bound by the said decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 04.12.2015 and it is not possible to allow the filing of written submissions, even subject to cost etc. after the time permissible. Moreover, the State Commission have observed in the impugned order dated 10.03.2016 that the appellant/OP failed to file the written statement as per the direction given vide order dated 01.10.2015 of the State Commission. It is evident, therefore, that the time permissible for filing the written statement in accordance with Section 13(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act has lapsed long time back. There is no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission therefore, and the same is upheld. The present appeal is ordered to be dismissed as there is no merit in the same. There shall be no order as to costs.