Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member and Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member
M/s. TDI Infrastructure Ltd. —Appellant
versus
Bhanwar Singh and Anr. —Respondents
First Appeal Nos.414 to 416 of 2017
Decided on 2.11.2017
For the Petitioner:Ms. Kanika Agnihotri, Advocate with Mr. Devansh Jain, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Ranbir Singh and Ms. Anzu K. Varkey, Advocates
IMPORTANT POINT
It is justifiable that minor delay of two days in filing written statement in t consumer complaint is condoned on suitable terms.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 13—Written statement—Limitation—Names of opposite parties in consumer complaints were ordered to be changed—Later on, amended complaints were filed on behalf of complainants—It is justifiable that minor delay of two days in filing written statement in present consumer complaints is condoned on suitable terms—Delay ordered to be condoned on payment of Rs. 2,000/- by appellant/OP to each of respondents—State Commission directed to accept written version of appellants/opposite parties subject to payment of cost. (Paras 8 and 9)
Result: Appeals allowed.
Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member—These first appeals have been filed under Section 19 read with Section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 30.01.2017, passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in Consumer Complaints No. 301/2016, 303/2016 and 304/2016 by which, it was directed as follows:—
“6. Hence, application of the OP for extension of time for filing of the written statement is rejected. In view of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 10941-10942 of 2013 titled ‘New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.’ dated 04.12.2015, further time cannot be granted for filing written version. The right of OP to file written statement stands closed.
7. Complainant to file evidence by way of affidavit along with written arguments within 8 weeks. OP shall also be at liberty to file written arguments on the aforesaid period.”
2. Briefly stated, the facts of these cases are that consumer complaints no. 301/2016, 303/2016 and 304/2016 were filed before the State Commission by the complainants Bhanwar Singh, Tahar Singh and Ranbir Singh against three Directors of M/s. TDI Infracorp Ltd., alleging deficiency in service for not handing over the possession of the flats in question, for which they had paid the necessary amounts as early as in the year 2005. The notice of the said complaints were issued to the respondents, who put in appearance through counsel. Vide order dated 30.11.2016, passed by the State Commission, the opposite parties no. 1 to 3 i.e. the Directors of M/s. TDI Infra Corp Ltd. were deleted from the array of parties and M/s. TDI Infra Corp Ltd. and TDI Infrastructure Ltd. were impleaded as the opposite parties/respondents. It is stated in the order dated 30.11.2016 that a copy of the complaint was supplied to TDI Infrastructure Ltd. and they were asked to file their written version to the complaint within 30 days, with advance copy to the complainants. However, the amended complaint is stated to have been filed on 14.12.2016, which was received by the State Commission on 14.12.2016, as evident from their stamp on the application filed by the learned counsel for the complainants. Vide impugned order dated 30.01.2017, the State Commission closed the right of opposite parties to file written statement and rejected their application for extension of time for filing the same, relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 10941-10942 of 2013, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (Pvt.) Ltd., decided on 04.12.2015. It is against this order that the present appeals have been made by the opposite parties.
3. During hearing before us, the learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties stated that as evident from the material on record, a copy of the amended complaint, filed by the complainants was received in the State Commission on 14.12.2016. The learned counsel submitted that taking into account the date of filing of the amended complaint, they had been able to file their written version before the State Commission on the 45th day and hence, the State Commission should not have refused to entertain the same. The learned counsel has drawn attention to an application, seeking extension of time in filing reply to the complaint, in which it was stated that a copy of the complaint was served on the opposite parties on 15.12.2016 and hence, they had time to file the reply before 15.01.2017 as per Section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. They had, however, sought permission of the State Commission to extend the time by 15 days as permissible under Section 13(2) of the Act. The State Commission had, therefore, taken an erroneous view in not granting them extension of time by 15 days i.e. upto 30.01.2017. The present appeals should, therefore, be accepted and the written version filed by them on 30.01.20
