IMPORTANT POINT
Written statement can be filed subject to payment of costs.

Dr. B.C. Gupta, Member—This first appeal has been filed under section 19 read with section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 13.10.2015, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) vide which, the application made by the appellant builder for permitting them to file their written statement before the State Commission in proceedings in Consumer Complaint No. CC/15/305, filed by the present respondent, was ordered to be dismissed.

2. The respondent Royal Residency Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. filed consumer complaint CC/15/305 against the appellant builder M/s. Ram Associates before the State Commission, alleging deficiency in service on their part in providing residential flats to the members of the Society. The said complaint was heard by the State Commission on 12.05.2015 and was duly admitted and a notice was sent to the appellant/opposite party (OP) for their appearance on 11.08.2015. On that date, i.e., 11.08.2015, an Advocate was present on behalf of the appellant/OP and he sought extension of time for filing the written version. The State Commission granted time to the appellant/OP to file the same by 16.09.2015 as a last chance. On 16.09.2015 again, the appellant/OP sought further time to submit written version but their request was rejected and the matter was adjourned for the next date, i.e., 13.10.2015. On that date, an application was moved by the appellant/OP for setting aside the order dated 16.09.2015 and to accept their written version. The State Commission observed that they had no powers to set aside their own order and hence, they dismissed the application of the complainant. The said order dated 13.10.2015 reads as follows:—

“Advocate Mr. Nilesh Nagrale is present for the complainant. Advocate Mr. Harshad Nanaware is present for the opponents. Advocate for the opponents has moved an application for setting aside the no written version order and to accept written version. He has made submission, why the written version is not filed within time as prescribed. As this Commission has no power to set aside its own order, the application filed by the complainant for setting aside the order is rejected. Matter is now adjourned for filing affidavit of evidence by the parties on 11/01/2016.”

3. The appellant/OP have challenged the order dated 13.10.2015 by way of the present first appeal. Notice of the appeal was given to the respondent/complainant, who entered appearance through counsel. During proceedings before this Commission, attention was drawn to an order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. vs. M/s Mampee Timbers & Hardwares Pvt. ltd. & Anr. [Civil Appeal D. No. 2365 of 2017 decided 10.02.2017]”, in which it is stated as follows:—

“We consider it appropriate to direct that pending decision of the larger bench, it will be open to the concerned Fora to accept the written statement filed beyond the stipulated time of 45 days in an appropriate case, on suitable terms, including the payment of costs, and to proceed with the matter.”

4. During hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant/OP stated on instructions that they were prepared to pay a nominal cost of Rs.25,000/- to the respondent and that they should be allowed to file their written statement on record. The learned counsel for the respondent, however, stated that the State Commission had already provided enough opportunity to the appellant to file their written statement. There was no valid reason for not filing the same within the time permissible. The learned counsel for the respondent, however, stated that keeping in view the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in some other similar cases, a minimum cost of Rs.50,000/- should be paid to them by the appellant, if the appellant were to be allowed to file their written statement.

5. A perusal of the orders passed by