Order No. : 08 Date : 15.03.2023 Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order passed vide Order No. 03 dated 11.07.2022 in CC 107/2022 by the then Ld. DCDRC, Purba Bardhaman, the complainant of the said CC 107/2022 have filed this instant Revision before this Commission on 26.07.2022 praying for setting arise the impugned order dated 11.07.2022 on the grounds that the impugned order is not maintainable as per scope of Section 38 (3) (a) of the C.P. Act 2019 and on further ground that the Ld. District Commission, Purba bardhaman erred in allowing the OP No. 1 of CC 107/2022 i.e. the OP 1 of the instant Revision Petition as well, Dr. R.N. Bhattahcarya to file written version in CC 107/2022 long after the maximum time limit of 45 days as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court of India. By filing the instant Revision Petition, the complainant/revisionist have prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated 11.07.2022 since it had allowed the OP 1 of CC 107/2022 Dr. R.N. Bhattacharya to file written version in CC 107/2022 even after the expiry of maximum mandatory time limit of 45 days which goes grossly against the categorical mandate settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in numbers of citations pronounced from the ends of the Hon’ble Apex Court of India, in consonance with the scope and stipulation of Section 38 (3) (a) of C.P. Act of 2019. This is contended further by the revisionists/complainants in this Revision Petition filed U/Sec. 41 of the C.P. Act 2019 that OP 1 of CC 107/2022 and the present R.P. as well, received summons of CC 107/2022 from the concerned Ld. District Commission, Purba Bardhaman on 25.05.2022 as evident from Postal Tract Report of CC 107/2022 but on 11.07.2022, the said OP 1 of CC 107/2022 Dr. R. N. Bhattahcarya appeared through his Ld. Counsel in CC 107/2022 and was granted time by the Ld. Commission vide order No. 3 dated 11.07.2022, till 03.08.2022 for filing written version in CC 107/2022 though his statutory period of filing written version in CC 107/2022 ended on 09.07.2022 and it is pressed from the revisionists/petitioners/complainants that since this extension of time beyond the maximum time limit in filing written version is grossly irregular in view of Section 38 (3) (a) of the C. P. Act 2019 and as it is not in consonance of the finding of the Hon’ble Apex Court of India on this score so the impugned order No. 3 dated 11.07.2022, passed by the Ld. District Commission, Purba Bardhaman in CC 107/2022 deserved to be set aside. POINTS for consideration It is to be determined whether the instant revision is legally entertainable and sustainable in the eye of law as prayed for by the revisionist/petitioner of this Revision i.e. the complainants of CC 107/2022 and it is to be assessed as to whether the impugned order No. 3 dated 11.07.2022 passed in CC 107/2022is legally appreciable in the eye of law. Decision with reason We have given through consideration of the submissions of the counsels of the revisionist i.e. the complainants of CC 107/2022 and the Ld. Counsel for the OP 1 in this revision petition. We have also gone through the available case record of CC 107/2022 and given due consideration thereon. It is forthcoming from the available materials on record that the complaint case No. 107/2022 was filed on 10.05.2022 and from the end of the complainants of CC 107/2022 filed on 20.05.2022 the said Complaint case was admitted by the Ld. Concerned District Commission and summons were directed to be served upon the OPs of CC 107/2022 who are eventually the OPs of this Revision Petition too. It appears from the materials on record that there remains convincing ground in the available case record of CC 107/2022 to hold that the OP 1 of CC 107/2022 received summons of CC 107/2022 on 25.05.2022. No convincing ground could be materialised by this OP 1 of CC 107/2022 to deny that fact and no cogent ground could be revealed to hold that the said OP 1 of CC 107/2022 Dr. R.N. Bhattacharya had not received the copy of complainant of CC 107/2022 along with the notice of CC 107/2022 when he had received the notice of CC 107/2022 on 25.05.2022. This appears that on 11.07.2022 the OP 1 of Cc 107/2022 Dr. R. N. Bhattacharya i.e. the OP 1 of this Revision Petition (RP/13/2022) appeared in CC 107/2022 through his Ld. Counsel who had filed hazirah in CC 107/2022 on behalf of the OP 1 on 11.07.2022 in CC 107/2022. It further transpires that by the impugned order No. 3 dated 11.07.2022 passed by the concerned DCDRC, Purba Bardhaman the OP 1 of CC 107/2022 was given scope to file written version in CC 107/2022 on 03.08.2022. It appears that against this order No. 3 dated 11.07.2022, the complainant of CC 107/2022 have preferred the instant revision contending that the said impugned order No. 3 dated 11.07.2022 passed in CC 107/2022 suffers from gross material irregularity since the same is not in consistency with the scope and stipulations contained in Sec 38 (3) (a) of C.P. Act 2019 and thereby the same is not sustainable in the eye of law, specifically in view of the authoritative findings of the Hon’ble Apex Court of India passed in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. VS Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2020) 5 SCC 757. Ld. Counsel for the OP/Respondent 2 of RP/13/2022 contended that it has unnecssarily been made party in the Revision Petition specially when on receipt of summons, it had filed its Written Version in connection with CC 107/2022 in time on 07.07.2022. It appears correctly that by filing put up petition dated 07.07.2022, it had (OP 2 of CC 107/2022) filed Written Version in CC 107/2022). It is forthcoming on specific observation of the available materials on record that there is legitimate ground to hold that the OP 1 of CC 107/2022 i.e. the OP 1 of the instant Revision Petition Dr. R.N. Bhattacharya had received summons of CC 107/2022 on 25.05.2022 as the track consingment of Postal Authority reveals yet he had turned up in CC 107/2022 for the first time on 11.07.2022 and unlike the other OP 2 of CC 107/2022, he had not filed written version in stipulated time from the point of time of his receipt of summon and complaint petition of CC 107/2022, rather the OP 1 of CC 107/2022 was granted time to file written version in CC 107/2022 on 03.08.2022, as prayed for by him. This is appearing from the impugned order No. 3 dated 11.07.2022 challenged in this revision by the petitioner side that on 11.07.2022 that there was no quorum on that day in the Ld. DCDRC, Purba Bardhaman for the absence of the President of the Ld. concerned DCDRC yet there remains no cogent ground to hold or appreciate that merely for the absence of the President of the concerned Ld. DCDRC OP 1 of CC 107/2022 would get legitimate ground to get extended time beyond specific stipulated time to file Written Version in CC 107/2022. The Ld. Counsel for the OP 1 has cited Birla Sunlife Insurance Company& Ors. Ltd. VS Harish Kumar Chadda to substantiate the OP 1’s contention to rationlise the delay and sought to reasonable approach in condoning the delay. However, it is forthcoming from the available materials on record and submissions of both sides that the OP 1 had no cogent reason to remain delay in filing the reply in CC 107/2022 in time as contemplated U/Sec. 38 (3) (a) of the C.P. Act 2019. While resisting the pleas of the OP 1 intended to justify its delay in filing the Written Version, the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has cited the reference of New India Assurance Company Ltd. VS Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd reported in (2020) 5 SCC 757 pronounced by the Hon'ble Apex Court which has practically set at rest all the arguments pleadings for extension of time from the stipulated time in filing the written version as per scope of Sec. 38 (3) (a) of C.P. Act 2019. It has also reflected specific settled principle of law that the District Forum has no power to extend the time to file Written Version in response to the complaint, beyond the period of 15 days in addition to 30 days as envisaged in Sec. 38 (3) (a) of C.P. Act 2019. Having regard to the constitution Bench decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in the Case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. VS Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited reported in (2020) 5 SCC 757, having regard to the decisions of J.J. Merchant VS Srinath Chaturvedi reported in (2002) 5 SCC 635 and the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in M/S. Daddys Builders Pvt. Ltd. VS Manisha Bhargava dated 11.02.2021, we feel inclined to hold that consumer fora has no jurisdiction and/or power to accept the written statement/version beyond the period of 45 days. Here in this case, the instant cardinal principle was not followed by the Ld. concerned DCDRC and by passing the impugned order No. 3 dated 11.07.2022 in CC 107/2022 Ld. Concerned DCDRC allowed the respondent No. 1/OP No. 1 in CC 107/2022 Dr. R.N. Bhattacharya, extended time to file written version in CC 107/2022, beyond the specific, stipulated, statutory time prescribe U/Sec. 38 (3) (a) of C.P. Act 2019 fixed for filing written version. This is not sustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly, the instant Revision Petition succeeds. Hence, it is ORDERED That the instant Revision Petition filed on 26.07.2022 pressed by the complainants of CC 107/2022stands allowed on contest against the respondent/OP 1. The impugned order No. 3 dated 11.07.2022 passed in CC 107/2022 stands set aside on contest. Let the LCR, copy of this judgement be sent down to the concerned DCDRC, Purba Bardhamn for perusal, information and to proceed to next step with CC 107/2022 pending before it. Parties to this Revision Petition are at liberty to get free copies of this judgement free of cost as per rule. . | 
