Review Application No.

In RP/33/2024

:

6 of 2024

Date of Institution

:

02.05.2024

Date of Decision

:

16.05.2024

                             This review application has been filed by the applicant/respondent/complainant for review of order dated 19.04.2024 passed by this Commission in Revision Petition No.33 of 2024. It may be stated here that the aforesaid revision petition filed by the opposite party, namely, VDK Eduventures Pvt. Ltd. (non-applicant herein) was accepted by this Commission that while setting aside order dated 26.03.2024 vide which the defense of the opposite party had been struck off by the District Commission below, this Commission gave opportunity to the non-applicant/revision petitioner to file its reply and evidence before the District Commission. It has been argued by the Counsel for the applicant/respondent/complainant that the opposite party would have at the most 45 days to file its written statement and the District Commission below, under no circumstances, could grant more time i.e. more than 45 days in total to the opposite party to file its reply. It has further been stated that the opposite party at least, that too as a matter of right, would get 30 days to file its reply and with the discretion of the District Commission, could get more time up to 15 days, which does not mean that the opposite party will get 45 days to file written statement all the time, the extra time given is the discretion of the court. It has further been stated that the District Commission rightly struck off the defense of the opposite party who failed to file its reply within 30 days from the date of service of notice i.e. 14.02.2024. The Counsel argued that extra 15 days time could be granted as discretion of the court and it is not a right of the opposite party. It has further been stated that the District Commission granted extra 12 days time to the opposite party to file its reply and in total 42 days were granted. It has further been stated that District Commission was well within its jurisdiction to not grant more time to file reply and strike off the defense of the opposite party.

2.         After hearing the Counsel for the applicant/respondent/ complainant, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the aforesaid contentions and this Review Application deserves to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.
3.         It may be stated here that the law on this subject is very much clear and already settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as discussed in order dated 19.04.2024 under review. Every contesting party has a right to stipulated period of 45 days to file its reply/defense. Provisions of Section 38 (3) (a) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 clearly puts an embargo upon the opposite party to file its version within a period of 30 days or such extended period not exceeding 15 days as may be granted by the District Commission. Further sub-section (b) appended thereto clearly stipulates that such version of the opposite party should be filed within the aforesaid stipulated period from the receipt of the copy of complaint. In view of specific provisions of law, we do not find any illegality or material irregularity in the order under review as the District Commission had struck off the right of the opposite party to file its written version before expiry of 45 days period. No doubt, the discretion solely vest with the Commission/Court, to or not to extend the time for filing written version beyond 30 days but the District Commission fixed the date 26.03.2024 for filing the written version i.e. four days less period to make it 45 days, which it could extend in view of the provisions of Section 38 ibid. Thus, this Commission vide the order under review rightly, vide allowing the Revision Petition, gave opportunity to the opposite party to file its reply and evidence/affidavit before the District Commission on the date already fixed before it. Further this Review Application is also not maintainable because as per Section 50  of CPA 2019, this Commission can review any of its order if there is an error apparent on the face of the record. Section 50 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 reads thus:-

“50. Review by State Commission in certain cases.- The State Commission shall have the power to review any of the order passed by it if there is an error apparent on the face of the record, either of its own motion or on an application made by any of the parties within thirty days of such order.”

4. However, there is no error apparent or say clerical error in order under review passed by this Commission. In view of above, this Review Application No.33 of 2024 stands dismissed with no order as to cost.
5.        Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.
6.           Certified copy of this order be also sent to the District Commission concerned forthwith.
7.        File be consigned to the Record Room after completion.

Pronounced

16.05.2024

[RAJESH K. ARYA]

PRESIDING MEMBER

[PREETINDER SINGH]

MEMBER