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

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member
Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority and Anr. —Appellants
versus
Gurvak Singh —Respondent
First Appeal No.718 of 2020
(Against the Order dated 15/09/2020 in Complaint No.139/2020 of the State Commission Punjab)
Decided on 27.10.2020

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants:Ms. Zehra Khan, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
Delay in filing the written version cannot be condoned beyond 15 days, by a consumer Forum.

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 19 : [Consumer Protection Act, 2019—Section 41]—Complaint—Written version if not filed within 15 days—Condonation of delay—Scope—More than 30 days elapsed since the notice by registered post was sent and having presumed the receipt of notice by appellant, proceeded ex parte against the appellant—Irrespective of merits of the case, it will not be permissible for this commission to condone the delay if it happens to be more that 15 days—Had the written version been filed on 15.9.2020 even then it would have been barred by limitation which had already expired on 14.9.2020—Written version of appellant cannot be taken on record—Directions issued. (Paras 3 to 5)

Result: Appeal disposed of.

ORDER (ORAL)

V.K. Jain, Presiding Member.—This appeal is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 15.9.2020 whereby the State Commission having noticed that more than 30 days had elapsed since the notice by Regd. Post was sent and having presumed the receipt of notice by the appellant, proceeded ex-parte against the appellant. The matter was listed for arguments on 29.10.2020.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant states on instructions that the appellant was served with the notice of the consumer complaint on 31.7.2020. Thirty days allowed for filing the written version expired on 30.8.2020. A further period of 15 days thereafter expired on 14.9.2020. It is an admitted position that the written version was not filed by 14.9.2020.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the written version was ready but could not be filed because of the compelling circumstances as disclosed in the affidavit of Shri Lakhwinder Singh Sidhu, Advocate. The affidavit of Mr. Lakhwinder Singh to the extent, it is relevant reads as under:-

“5. That since I was to put appearance for and on behalf of respondents i.e. PUDA and BDA. I joined the video conferencing at 10:00 a.m. sharp. However, since the sitting of the Hon’ble Commission was to resume at 10:30 a.m., the mic of the host was mute.

6. That I tried to join at 10:30 a.m., however, the note was showing ‘this room is not available’.

7. I kept on trying continuously, however, every time I met with the same note. On the website of the Hon’ble Commission a landline phone number (0172-2693737) has been provided as helpline number. I made repeated calls but the phone call was not answered to.

8. That after 12:00 noon the note on the website showed this ‘room is currently locked’.

9. That in the afternoon I physically visited the premises of Hon’ble Commission and I was told that the respondents have been preceded against ex-parte. I also came to know that even the complainant also could not join the video conferencing.

10. That I conducted enquiry regarding the note, which was showing from 10:30 am to 12:00 noon, ‘this room is not available’. I have been told that this web application admits a limited number of participants at a given time and once the house is full, this note would be shown. Since the house remained full during the entire sitting of the Hon’ble Commission, I was not admitted in the video conferencing.

11. That the respondents have been proceeded against ex-parte only for the reason that I could not join the video conferencing. That is further for the reason that I was never admitted in the room in spite of the fact that I kept on trying from 10.30 a.m. to 12.00 noon.

12. That the respondents had sent the Vakalatnama and reply well in advance at my office. I was supposed to put appearance through video conferencing and thereafter to leave my reply and Vakalatnama in the drop box kept in front of the building of Hon’ble Commission. However, since I was proceeded against ex-parte during the video conferencing, later on I was not even to drop my Vakalatnama and my reply.”

It is evident from the affidavit of Mr. Lakhwinder Singh that the written version was not filed on 14.9.2020. The Affidavit does not disclose even an attempt to file the written version on 14.9.2020. The whole explanation contained in the affidavit is with respect to 15.9.2020.

4. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.10941-10942 of 2013 - New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. dated 04.03.2020, the delay in filing the written version cannot be condoned beyond 15 days, by a Consumer Forum. Therefore, irrespective of the merit of the case, it will not be permissible for this Commission to condone the delay if it happens to be more than 15 days. Had the written version been filed on 15.9.2020 even then it would have been barred by limitation which had already expired on 14.9.2020.

5. For the reasons stated hereinabove, t

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top