This appeal has been filed by the appellant, Pranab Kumar Bhattacharya against the order dated 24.10.2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka (for short, ‘State Commission’) in CC No. 106/2016. 2. Brief facts relevant for deciding the present appeal are that the appellant is the original complainant who had filed complaint against OP-1 to 5 before the State Commission. Vide impugned order dated 24.10.2016, the State Commission has allowed extension of time for filing the written statement of OP-1 and OP-2 at a cost of Rs.5,000/- each to be paid to the complainant. By this order, the complainant was also asked to serve OP-3 and OP-5 as the notices were returned unserved. Notice to OP-4 was not returned by that time, therefore, the State Commission asked to wait for service to OP-4 and the next date was fixed on 1.11.2016. Being aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant. 3. Heard the appellant in person and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 4. Appellant, who appears in person, stated that the State Commission should not have allowed any extension of time for filing of written statement to OP-1 and OP-2 because by that time the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Civil Appeal Nos.10941-10942 of 2013, decided on December 04, 2015 (SC) was not superseded and therefore, the State Commission was not justified in allowing any extension of time beyond 45 days for filing of the written statement. The learned counsel further argued that the appellant/complainant is also aggrieved by the fact that the complainant had served OP-3 and OP-5 from his own side but the State Commission has not accepted the service and has asked the complainant to take further steps for service to OP-3 and OP-5. Once the service has been done through any means, the OPs have become aware of the case against them and no further notice is required to be sent by the State Commission. In fact, all the parties have been served by the complainant’s side and service should have been treated as completed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.1/OP-1 stated that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has allowed the consumer fora to accept the written statement filed with delay in appropriate cases on suitable terms vide its order dated 10.2.2017 passed in Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. And another vs. M/s. Mampee Timbers and Hardwares Pvt. Ltd. And another [Civil Appeal No…..of 2017 (D. No.2365 of 2017, wherein the following has been held: “We consider it appropriate to direct that pending decision of the larger bench, it will be open to the concerned Fora to accept the written statement filed beyond the stipulated time of 45 days in an appropriate case, on suitable terms, including the payment of costs, and to proceed with the matter”. 6. The learned counsel for respondent no.1 further argued that even if the State Commission was not justified in granting extension of time for filing written statement, the impugned order has now got the sanctity by way of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order passed in Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. and another vs. M/s. Mampee Timbers and Hardwares Pvt. Ltd. and another (supra). Thus, there is no need to set aside the order passed by the State Commission. 7. Learned counsel on behalf of respondents no.2 to 5 /OP-2 to OP-5 stated that OP-2 was allowed time to file written statement at a cost of Rs.5,000/- and OP-3 to 5 were to be served. Thus, no prejudice is caused to the complainant by the order of the State Commission in respect of OP-3, 4 and 5. With respect to order regarding written statement to be filed by OP-2, he agrees with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for OP-1. 8. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the appellant as well as learned counsel for respondents and have examined the record. 9. It is true that when the State Commission has passed this order, the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd (supra) had come and accordingly, the consumer fora were not allowed to accept the written statement beyond the period of 45 days from service of notice. Thus, prima facie, the order of the State Commission was without jurisdiction and therefore, this needs to be set aside. Moreover, it is not clear when the actual written statement was filed by OP-1 and OP-2 or whether it has not been filed at all. So far as the order of the State Commission in respect of the ordering complainant to take steps for service to OP-3 and OP-5 is concerned, I do not find any illegality in this order because the service effected by the complainant cannot necessarily be accepted by the State Commission as it is to satisfy itself on the issue of service of notice. Similarly, the order of the State Commission for awaiting the service of respondent no.4 also does not suffer from any illegality. 10. The situation has changed now and the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order in Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. and another vs. M/s. Mampee Timbers and Hardwares Pvt. Ltd. and another (supra) has allowed the Consumer Fora to accept the written statement filed with delay in appropriate cases on suitable terms. Thus, now the State Commission is free to accept the written statement filed even with delay by the OPs. Acceptance of written statement filed with delay on suitable terms may be necessary in the interest of justice so that the complaint is rightly decided on merits. 11. From the above discussion, the order dated 24.10.2016 of the State Commission in respect of giving time to OP-1 and OP-2 to file written statement at a cost of Rs.5,000/- each is set aside, but it is made clear in the light of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. and another vs. M/s. Mampee Timbers and Hardwares Pvt. Ltd. and another (supra), that the State Commission would be free to accept the written statement filed by the OPs with delay on suitable terms including cost. If the parties have not filed the written statement, they are given 30 days time to file the written statement from the date of this order. If some of the OPs have already filed written statement, the State Commission will accept the same on suitable terms including award of cost to the complainant. Keeping in view the delay occurred in filing the written statement, even if any written statement is filed in pursuance of this order, the State Commission shall accept the same on suitable terms including cost to the complainant. With these directions, the First Appeal No.1489 of 2016 stands disposed of. 12. Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 13.8.2018. | 
