ORDER

11.12.2024

1. By way of this order we are disposing off this application filed by complainant for striking off the written statement filed by OP1 u/s 38 (3). It is stated in the application that as per the speed post tracking report the notice of the complaint was duly received by OP on 06.07.2022. OP filed written statement with registry vide diary no. 1786 dated 07.10.2022. Complainant received the copy of the written statement on 14.03.2023 as such OP filed written statement after the delay of 48 days from the date of service, hence, the written statement filed by OP be taken off the record as per section 38 (3) (a) and in terms of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as “New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. reported as 2020 (5) SCC 757.
2. Reply to the application filed by OP wherein it is stated that there was a delay of 12 days in filing the written statement which might be beyond 30 days but within 45 days. It is further stated that OP filed vakalatnama on 03.08.2022 along with an application for supplying the copy of the complaint and annexures. OP received the copy of complaint on 10.08.2022 and filed its written statement on 23.09.2022 vide diary no. 1786 as such OP succeeded in filing the written statement within the statutory period of 45 days. It is further prayed that the application of the complainant be dismissed with cost being frivolous one.
3. We have heard the arguments advance at the bar by Ld. Counsel for complainant Sh. Mukesh Kumar Gill and Ms. Ritunjaya Tiwari counsel for OP.
4. It is argued by complainant counsel that OP failed to file its written statement within statutory limit as such the written statement filed by OP be strike off from the record in terms of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case title M/s Daddys Builder Vs. Manisha Bhargava & Ors. Dated 11.02.2021  
5. It is stated by OP counsel that Hon’ble Commission should take a lenient view considering the exception hardship and no litigant should suffer for the negligence or incompetency of the counsel. It is further stated that OP is intends to contest the case hotly. It is stated that WS be taken on record in the interest of justice.
6. As per tracking report OP served on 06.07.2022. As per record WS filed on 07.10.2022 vide diary no. 1786. Admittedly, after 45 days from 06.07.2022 there is a delay of 48 days beyond 45 days limitation period of filing WS.For the sake of arguments if we consider the contention of OP that  the copy of complaint was received on 10.08.2022, admittedly OP filed its written statement on 07.10.2022, still there is a delay of 13 days beyond 45 days limitation period of filing WS.  The law is well settled that provisions of CPC order 8 rule 1 is not applicable before District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission as  CP Act, 2019 is applicable. The law is well settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/S Daddys Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs Manisha Bhargava decided on 11 February, 2021. It is held as under:

It is required to be noted that as per the decision of this Court in the case of J.J. Merchant v. Shrinath Chaturvedi, reported in (2002) 6 SCC 635, which was a three Judge Bench decision, consumer fora has no power to extend the time for filing a reply/written statement beyond the period prescribed under the Act. However, thereafter, despite the above three Judge Bench decision, a contrary view was taken by a two Judge Bench and therefore the matter was referred to the five Judge Bench and the Constitution Bench has reiterated the view taken in the case of J.J.Merchant (supra) and has again reiterated that the consumer fora has no power and/or jurisdiction to accept the written statement beyond the statutory period prescribed under the Act, i.e., 45 days in all. However, it was found that in view of the order passed by this Court in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) dated 10.02.2017, pending the decision of the larger Bench, in some of the cases, the State Commission might have condoned the delay in filing the written statement filed beyond the stipulated time of 45 days and all those orders condoning the delay and accepting the written statements shall not be affected, this Court observed in paragraph 63 that the decision of the Constitution Bench shall be applicable prospectively. We say so because one of us was a party to the said decision of the Constitution Bench.

7. Now applying the above principle in the present facts and circumstances we are of the opinion that OP1 filed written statement beyond 45 days of statutory period which cannot be condoned by this commission, therefore, present application stands allowed. The WS filed by OP cannot be taken on record being time barred and struck off from the record.
8. Now come up for filing of written arguments on 05.05.2025.
9.  The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

SANJAY KUMAR                 NIPUR CHANDNA           RAJESH

       PRESIDENT                             MEMBER                  MEMBER