ORDER

JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA (ORAL) THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING

         The present Revision Petition, under Section 58 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short “the Act”) has been filed by the Petitioner against the order dated 18.09.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (for short “the State Commission”).  By the impugned order, the application filed by the Petitioner against the order dated 15.12.2016 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata-II (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint No.316 of 2013 was dismissed.  Vide the application, the Petitioner had sought grant of opportunity to file their written version after the expiry of statutory period of 45 days.  By the impugned order, the order of the District Forum was confirmed by the State Commission.  This order is impugned before me.    

2.      It is argued by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the written version could not be filed by the Petitioner due to the stay

-3-

order whereby the proceedings of the District Forum were stayed for the period from May 2014 to 22.07.2016.

3.      It is argued by learned Counsel for the Respondents that the statutory period for filing the written version had already expired before the stay order was passed.  It is submitted that the petitioner who was the Opposite Party before the District Forum, had appeared on 28.11.2013.  This shows that they must have been served before 28.11.2013 and yet within 45 days from the date of appearance, they did not file the written version.  It is submitted that now the issue relating to the jurisdiction of the Fora below under Consumer Protection Act to extend the period of limitation beyond the statutory period of 45 days stands decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., 2020 SCC Online SC 287”.           

4.      I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the relevant material on record.

5.      The admitted facts of the case are that the Petitioner, who was the Opposite Party in the Complaint, had appeared before the District Forum on 28.11.2013.  It is also an admitted fact that the Petitioner had failed to file their written version within the statutory

-4-

period.  They did not move an application for extension of time before the expiry of the statutory period for filing the written version.  After the statutory period for filing the written version was expired, they moved an application which was dismissed by the District Forum solely on the ground that the delay could not be condoned.  This application for condonation of delay was moved by the Petitioner in the year 2016, i.e. almost three years, after putting up the appearance before the District Forum.  The stay was operative for the period from May 2014 to 22.07.2016 and the statutory period for filing the written version had already expired before May 2014.  Existence of the stay order does not confer any valid right upon the Petitioner to seek condonation of delay in filing the written version which had already expired.  The present Revision Petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.     

......................J

DEEPA SHARMA

PRESIDING MEMBER