NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member
Dr. P. Yashodhara —Appellant
versus
K. Sreelatha —Respondent
First Appeal No.306 of 2014
(Against the Order dated 28/06/2012 in Complaint No.78 of 2011 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh) with IA Nos.3512, 3513, 3514 of 2014 and 6837 of 2015
Decided on 21.9.2016
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member—This appeal has been filed under Section 19 read with Section 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 28.6.2012, passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’) in CCIA No. 1368/2012 in Consumer Complaint No. 78/2011 pending before that Commission. The State Commission, vide this order, declined to review their earlier order dated 1.2.2012, relying upon the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Hitendra Pathak v. Achyut Kashinath Karekar reported in 2012 (2) ALD 146 (SC),saying that they had no powers to review such orders. Vide their earlier order dated 1.2.2012, the State Commission did not allow the appellant to file their written version to the consumer complaint on the ground that the same was not filed within the time allowed.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the complainant/respondent. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that they should be allowed to file their written version before the State Commission in proceedings in the consumer complaint, and the order passed by the State Commission dated 1.2.2012 should be set aside.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent however, stated that the written version could be filed only in accordance with the time permitted under Section 13(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The order passed by the State Commission was, therefore, in accordance with law.
4. The main issue for consideration in the present matter is whether the appellant/OP could be allowed to file the written version beyond the period allowed under Section 13(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection, 1986. In the light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 4.12.2015 in “New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd .”, AIR 2016 SC 86, the written version can be filed within the time permissible under Section 13(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 only. A party is allowed a time of 30 days to file the written version from the service of the notice upon them. This time can be extended by a further period of 15 days by the concerned consumer forum, on filing an application to that effect. In the present case, admittedly, the written version was not filed within the time allowed under Section 13(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The prayer of the appellant, therefore, for permission to file the written version at this stage cannot be accepted.
5. In view of the position of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the present appeal is, therefore, ordered to be dismissed and the impugned order passed by the State Commission as well as their earlier order dated 1.2.2012 are upheld. There shall be no order as to costs.
Appeal dismissed.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.