SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

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

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. V. Sridhar Reddy, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma and Mr. Y. Ramesh, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINT
Written version can be filed within time permissible under Section 13(1)(a) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 only.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 13(1)(a)—Written version—Limitation—Written version can be filed within time permissible under Section 13(1)(a) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 only—A party is allowed time of 30 days to file written version from service of notice upon him—This time can be extended by a further period of 15 days by concerned consumer forum on filing of application to that effect—In present case, admittedly, written version was not filed within time allowed under Section 13(1)(a) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Prayer of appellant for permission to file written version at this stage cannot be accepted—Impugned order passed by State Commission upheld. (Paras 4 and 5)

       Result: Appeal dismissed.

       

ORDER

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.


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top