Back
PAYTM PAYMENT BANK LTD. V. NAMITA BAJAJ
Page 1 of 3
29.11.2023
RP NO.53/2023
The present revision petition been filed on 10.08.2023 impugning
the order dated 12.04.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission-VII, (South West), in CC No.141/2021 vide
which right of the Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2 to file reply/written
statement has been closed. The order reads as under:
“Counsel for OP No.2 is placing on record proof of receipt of the
reply dated 25.02.22. The complaint copy was received by OP-2
on 23.11.21. Clearly, the reply is not within time as per statutory
provision of 45 days as given under the CPA Act and reiterated by
the landmark judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.
(2020) 5 SCC 757 by the Constitution Bench of Hobn’ble Supreme
Court held on 04th March 2020.
Hence, the defence of OP -2 is closed henceforth and reply shall
not be taken on record and shall be returned back to OP -2.
….”
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
the opposite party mentioned in the complaint
PAYTM PAYMENT BANK LTD. V. NAMITA BAJAJ
Page 2 of 3
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 No.2 on 23.11.2021 and the written statement
has been filed by the Petitioner/OP No.2 on 25.05.2022. Therefore, the
written statement has neither been filed within the prescribed period of
thirty day nor within the extended period of 15 days under the Consumer
Protection Act, 2019.
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:-
“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.”
PAYTM PAYMENT BANK LTD. V. NAMITA BAJAJ
Page 3 of 3
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
Petitioner/OP No.2 has neither denied the receipt of complaint on
23.11.2021 nor the filing of written statement on 25.05.2022. Hence,
there is not an iota of doubt that the same is filed beyond the period of
forty-five days as stipulated under the Act.
In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered view that this
revision petition is devoid of merits. There is no infirmity or illeg
