Back
M/S. ANANDA DAIRY V. SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
Page 1 of 4
29.11.2023
RP NO.39/2023
The present revision petition been filed on 09.06.2023 impugning
the order dated 28.04.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission-II, (South -II), in CC No.245/2021 vide which
right of the Petitioner/Opposite Party to file reply/written statement has
been closed. The order reads as under:
“Perusal of the file shows that no vakalatnama on behalf
of OP has been filed. Complainant had filed proof of
service on OP by way of affidavit. It is stated by the
counsel for OP that though he has received the copy of
complaint but he could not get the copy of annexures.
When the Commission asked him as to when did he tried
to contact the counsel for complainant else Commission to
get the annexures, he has not given any straight reply as it
is seen that his vakalatnama is also not on record.
Commission deems it fit to close the right of OP to file the
reply. List the matter for complainant’s evidence on
18.08.2023.”
To resolve this issue, we deem it appropriate to refer to Section 38
of the Consumer Protection, 2019 which provides as follows:-
“38. Procedure on admission of complaint…
(2)
Where the complaint relates to any goods, the
District Commission shall, -
(a)
refer a copy of the admitted complaint, within
twenty-one days from the date of its admission to
M/S. ANANDA DAIRY V. SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
Page 2 of 4
the opposite party mentioned in the complaint
directing him to give his version of the case within
a period of thirty days or such extended period not
exceeding fifteen days as may be granted by it…”
From the aforesaid provision, it is clear that the written statement
should be filed within a period of thirty days or such extended period not
exceeding fifteen days as may be granted by the District Commission. On
perusal of record before us, it is clear that the copy of the complaint was
supplied to Petitioner/ OP before 18.12.2022 and the Complainant has
also filed affidavit of service upon the OP. The said fact has not been
denied by the Petitioner/OP. It is stated by the Petitioner/OP that though
it had received the copy of the complainant, however, no annexures were
supplied and conveyed the same to the Complainant but no annexures
were supplied by the Complainant.
Perusal of record shows that the OP has neither filed the written
statement within the prescribed period of thirty day nor within the
extended period of 15 days under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Subsequent to which the impugned order has been passed by the Ld.
District Commission.
We need to answer whether this Commission/District Commission
has the power to extend time for filing response to the complaint beyond
the period of fifteen days in addition to thirty days as provided under the
Act. To deal with this issue, we deem it appropriate to refer the New
India Assurance Vs Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. reported
in (2020) 5 SCC,757, wherein the Apex Court held as under:-
M/S. ANANDA DAIRY V. SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
Page 3 of 4
“62. ……district Forum has no power to extend the time
for filing the response to the complaint beyond the
time period of 15 days in addition to 30 days as is
envisaged under Section 13 of the Consumer
Protection Act, and the answer to the second
question is that the commencing point of limitation
of 30 days under Section 13 of the Consumer
Protection Act would be from the date of receipt of
the notice accompanied with the complaint by the
opposite party, and not mere receipt of the notice
of the complaint.”
Applying the above settled law, we are of the view that neither this
Commission nor the District Commission has power to extend the time
for filing the written statement beyond the period of fifteen days in
addition to thirty days as provided under the Act.
Reverting back to the material available on record, we find that the
Petitio
