PER MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER Respondent no.1/Complainant filed a consumer complaint against Petitioner-Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd./O.P. No.2 (R.P. No.1301 of 2013)as well as against Petitioner- Airport Authority of India /O.P. No.1 (R.P. No.1349 of 2013 on the allegations that on 16.6.2011 complainant foot tripped over the hole just opposite the entry gate of Terminal -3 at IGI Airport, New Delhi. Thus, the complainant suffered severe injury which has been caused solely due to the negligence and callous attitude of the Airport staff and the failure of the senior management to enforce any level of public safety. Thus, alleging failure on the part of the opposite parties to ensure safety in public area and other deficiencies, the complainant prayed for the following reliefs; . A sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards punitive compensation for the failure of the OPs to take preemptive steps which would have prevented the severe injury to the complainant. b. A sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for the physical and mental trauma suffered by the complainant. c. A sum of Rs.38,000/- towards the ticket cancellation charges expenses incurred by the complainant. d. A sum of Rs.10,966/- towards the expenses incurred on the Schengen visa to Spain, for the complainant aborted vacation plans. e. A sum of Rs.800/- towards the expenses incurred on the travel insurance for the complainant aborted vacation plans. f. A sum of Rs.6,00,000/- towards the loss of mobility, work and income for a period of three months. g. Interest @ 18% on the monies awarded by the State Commission from the date of the injury up till the date of actual payment." 2. The consumer complaint came up for hearing before the State Commission, Delhi on 9.11.2011 in which following orders were passed on that date and subsequent thereto; 9.11.2011 C-312/11 Present : None for the Complainant Heard. Perused the record. Admit. Issue notice to the OP for filing written version and for further orders. Put up on 19th Jan., 2012 before bench No.2 for hearing. 19.01.2012 C-11/312 Present : None for the Complainant Ms. Meenakshi Gautam, Counsel for OP No.1 Shri A.P. Vinod, Counsel for OP No.2 1. Memo of appearance filed on behalf of both the Counsel for OPs. Both Counsel undertake to file vakalatnama on the next date of hearing. 2. At the request copy of complaint book is supplied to each of OP counsel from office record against acknowledgement. Reply be filed within six weeks with copy served well in advance to complainant. 3. Issue notice to Complainant/Counsel for Complainant through registered cover AD card why his complaint should not be dismissed in default as he is not appearing since last two consecutive dates. 4. Re-list on 10-04-2012. 10-04-2012 C-312/2011 Present : Sh. Malhotra alongwith Sh. Yashpreet Singh, Counsel for the Complainant Sh. A.P. Vinod, Counsel for OP-1 None for OP-2 1. Reply filed on behalf of the OP-1 alongwith Vakalatnama is on record. Copy of the reply of OP-1 supplied to the complainant counsel who will file rejoinder alongwith entire complainant evidence within 4 weeks with copy to OP-1 counsel. 2. In the interest of justice one more last opportunity is provided to the OP-2 for filing reply alongwith Vakalatnama within 15 days otherwise opportunity for filing the reply will be automatically closed. 3. Re-list on 13.8.2012. 3. Thereafter, it appears that on 13.8.2012 the building of the State Commission was sealed due to security reasons for Independence Day. Thus, as per Petitioner-Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd., it could not file the written statement on that day. 4. On 2.11.2012, State Commission passed the following order; . In this case on 10.4.12, OP-2 was given time to file the reply along with vakalatnama within 15 days otherwise the opportunity of filling the written statement is automatically closed. No reply has been filed in the stipulated time so that the reply filed today does not taken on record. 2. Ld. Counsel for the complainant stated that he has already filed rejoinder and evidence of the complainant. 3. Fix 29.11.2012 for evidence of OP-1. 5. On 29.11.2012, the Member of the Commission was on leave. 6. Thereafter, on 22.3.2013 State Commission passed the following order; , O.P. No.1 has not filed evidence nor any time is sought by the authorized counsel for the OP-1, therefore, evidence of the OP-1 is closed. 2. An application is moved on behalf of the OP-2 to recall the order dated 2.11.12. Neither the District Forum nor the State Commission has any power to recall or review their order as per the latest judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore, this application is hereby rejected. 3. Fix 10.4.13 for arguments. 7. The Petitioners have filed the above revision petitions praying that orders dated 22.3.2013 and 2.11.2012 passed by the State Commission be modified and written statement and evidence filed by the petitioners be taken on record and matter be decided on merits. 8. Notice of these petitions were issued to the complainant. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 10. Delay condoned. 11. It has been contended by learned counsel for the Petitioner (R.P. No.1301 of 2013) that non-filing of the written statement by it was neither voluntary, deliberate nor intentional. This petitioner was prevented from filing the written statement on 13.2.2012, when building of the State Commission was sealed due to security reasons. Further, no prejudice will be caused to the complainant if written statement is taken on record. It is also contended that petitioner should be given opportunity to contest the case on merits. Merely on technical ground, petitioner should not be deprived of his legal right. In support, learned counsel has relied upon following judgments; i) Manoharan Vs. Sivarajan & others, Civil Appeal No.10581 of 2013 decided by Apex Court on 25th November, 2013; ii) M/s. Colgate-Palmolive Co. Vs. M/s. Hindustan Rimmer and others, AIR 1995 DELHI 95 and iii) Topline Shoes Ltd. Vs. Corporation Bank, AIR 2002 SC 2427. 12. Whereas, learned counsel for petitioner (R.P. No.1349/2013) has contended that due to bona fide mistake it could not file the evidence. In the interest of justice, opportunity be granted to file the evidence. Otherwise, gross injustice shall be caused. 13. On the other hand, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the complainant, that petitioners had been given more than sufficient opportunity to file the written statement/evidence. However, they failed to file the same within the specified period. As such, there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. 14. It is apparent from the record that after filing the complaint before the State Commission, none appeared for the complainant on 9.11.2011 as well as on 19.1.2012. The State Commission had shown indulgence to the complainant by not dismissing its complaint for its non-appearance on two consecutive dates. So, on the principles of parity, petitioners herein, are also entitled to certain indulgence in this case. 15. Be that as it may, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Topline Shoes Ltd. (supra) has held; 4. We have already noticed that the provision as contained under Clause (a) of Sub-section (2) of Section 13 is procedural in nature. It is also clear that with a view to achieve the object of the enactment, that there may be speedy disposal of such cases, that it has been provided that reply is to be filed within 30 days and the extension of time may not exceed 15 days. This provision envisages that proceedings may not be prolonged for a very long time without the opposite party having filed his reply. No penal consequences have however been provided in case extension of time exceeds 15 days. Therefore, it could not be said that any substantive right accrued in favour of the appellant or there was any kind of bar of limitation in filing of the reply within extended time though beyond 45 days in all. The reply is not necessarily to be rejected. All facts and circumstances of the case must be taken into account. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act also provides that principles of natural justice have also to be kept in mind. 16. Hence, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, in order to have decision on merits it would be in the fitness of things that the above noted revisions should be allowed and petitioners should be given one more opportunity to file their written statement/evidence. 17. Accordingly, we allow the present revision petitions and set aside the impugned order passed by the State Commission and direct the Petitioner-Delhi International Airport Ltd. to file its written statement with the State Commission within six weeks from today with copy to the opposite party, subject to payment of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) as cost. Similarly, Petitionerirport Authority of India is also permitted to file its evidence by way of affidavits within six weeks with copy to the opposite party, subject to payment of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) as cost. 18. In case petitioners fail to comply with the above directions within the specified period, then their opportunity to file written statement/evidence shall stand closed automatically without any further orders. 19. With these observations, present revision petitions stand disposed of. 20. Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 28.3.2014 for further proceedings. 21. Dasti to all parties.