STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MADHYA PRADESH REVISION PETITION NO. SC/23/RP/24/48 CAPRI GLOBAL HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED PRESENT ADDRESS - 10 THIRD FLOOR GOURAV COMPLEX SHANCHI ROAD VIDISHA ,MADHYA PRADESH.

.......Petitioner(s)

Versus SMT DILY DUBEY W/O ANAND DUBEY PRESENT ADDRESS - WARD NO 11 TT JAIN PATASHALA MEEL ROAD GANJBASODA DISTRICT VIDISHA M P ,MADHYA PRADESH.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. DR.SRIKANTH PANDEY , PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. DR. MONIKA MALIK , MEMBER FOR THE PETITIONER:

CAPRI GLOBAL HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED FOR THE RESPONDENT:

SMT DILY DUBEY W/O ANAND DUBEY DATED: 25/04/2025

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL REVISION PETITION NO. 48 OF 2024 (Arising out of order dated 06.07.2023 passed in C.C.No.113/2023 by the District Commission Bhopal)

CAPRI GLOBAL HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED, 10, THIRD FLOOR, GAURAV BUSINESS SQUARE, OPPOSITE ADANI WILMARE, SANCHI ROAD, VIDISHA THROUGH SANDEEP DIXIT, AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE. .… PETITIONER.

Versus SMT. DILI DUBEY, W/O SHRI ANAND DUBEY, R/O WARD NO. 11, T.T.JAIN PATHSHALA MEEL ROAD, GANJ BASODA DISTRICT-VIDISHA (MP) …. RESPONDENT.

BEFORE:

HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY : PRESIDING MEMBER HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK : MEMBER COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

Shri Sunil Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner.

None for the respondent.

O R D E R

(Passed On 25.04.2025)

The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr.

Monika Malik, Member.

This revision petition is filed by the petitioner/opposite party against the order dated 06.07.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (For short District Commission) in C.C.No.113/2023 whereby the District Commission did not take the reply on record as it was filed beyond 45 days.

2. Heard.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that counsel appearing for the petitioner appeared before the District Commission to file reply but the District Commission closed the right of the petitioner to file reply stating that it will not be read as it was filed beyond 45 days. He argued that the impugned order passed by the District Commission is against the principles of natural justice.

He submits that in the interest of justice one opportunity be granted to file reply.

Learned counsel prays for setting aside of the impugned order.

4. Having gone through the impugned order we observe that the notice of complaint was directed to be issued to the party on 15.05.2023. On 18.05.2023 notice was issued to the opposite party and was served on 19.05.2023 (which is evident from the tracking report filed on record). From 19.05.2023 the period of 45 days expired on 03.07.2023. On 06.07.2023 at the request of learned counsel for the opposite party, on an application for urgent hearing the case was taken and the counsel for opposite party made a prayer to take the reply on record. The District Commission vide impugned order though took the reply on record but directed that it will not be considered.

5. The Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. II (2020)

CPJ 1 (SC) has held in paragraph 13 Sub Section 2(a) of Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides for the opposite party to give his response within a period of 30 days or such extended period not exceeding 15 days as may be granted by the District Forum. The intention of the legislature seems to be very clear that the opposite party would get the time of 30 days, and in addition another 15 days at the discretion of the Forum to file its response. No further discretion of granting time beyond 45 days is intended under the Act.

The question of natural justice is dealt with the legislature in Sub-

Section (3) of Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which clearly provides that No proceedings complying with the procedure laid down in Sub Section (1) and (2) shall be called in question in any court on the gr