ORDER

1.     This revision has been filed under section 58(1)(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 2019  in challenge to the impugned Order dated 22.02.2023 passed by the State Commission in appeal no. 216 of 2023 arising out of the Order dated 29.11.2022 of the District Commission in complaint no.189 of 2022.

2.       Heard the learned counsels for the petitioner and for the respondent. Perused the record including inter alia the impugned Order dated 29.11.2022 passed by the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 22.02.2023 passed by the State Commission and the memo of petition.

3.       The relevant facts germane to the petition appear to be like this. The complaint in question was filed before the District Commission. The notice was issued which stood served on 31.08.2022. The matter was next fixed before the Commission on 15.10.2022. On the same date, appearance was put in and the written version was filed on behalf of the respondent / opposite party. As the written version was filed beyond 30 days, the application for extension of time / condonation of delay was also filed along with it but the same was rejected by the District Commission vide its Order dated 29.11.2022.

4.       Feeling aggrieved by the same, the appeal was filed before the State Commission by the respondent / opposite party. The appeal was allowed and the Order dated 29.11.2022 passed by the District Commission whereby it refused to take the written version on record, was set aside. The State Commission was of the view that the notice was served on 31.08.2022 and if 45 days are calculated form then it will end on 15.10.2022. According to the State Commission, the written version was filed along with application seeking permission to bring it on record on the last permissible day i.e.15.10.2022. According to the State Commission, the District Commission could and should have accepted the written version to be taken on record by allowing the application moved by the respondent / opposite party.  

      Now the complainant has filed the present petition in challenge to the impugned Order dated 22.02.2023 passed by the State Commission allowing the written version to be brought on record.

5.       Learned counsel for the petitioner / complainant has argued that the District Commission had passed its Order on 29.11.2022 while the appeal against the same was filed by the respondent / opposite party on 04.02.2023 with some delay. Submission is that the State Commission has proceeded to pass the impugned Order without considering the issue of delay and without condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Submission is that this omission of the State Commission is a jurisdictional error. The State Commission could have assumed the jurisdiction to pass any order only after condoning the delay which it did not. According to the learned counsel, the impugned Oder on this very ground becomes unsustainable having been passed without jurisdiction.

          It has also been submitted that in the Consumer Protection Act the word ‘from’ has not been used while laying down the period within which the written version can be filed. Attention was drawn to the relevant portion of Section 38(3) (a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which reads as follows:

          “Section 38

            xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

            xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

(3) The District Commission shall, if the complaint admitted by it under sub-section(2) of section 36 relates to goods in respect of which the procedure specified in sub-section (2) cannot be flowed, or if the complaint relates to any services,—                   

(a)        refer a copy of such complaint to the opposite party directing him to give his version of the case within a period of thirty days or such extended period not extending fifteen days as may be granted by the District Commission;”

          According to the learned counsel in the absence of the word  ‘from’ in the relevant context of the Act the date on which service has been e