PER MR SUBHASH CHANDRA 1. This appeal seeks quashing and setting aside of order dated 11.01.2018 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in CC no. 440 of 2018 closing the right of the appellant to file his written statement/ reply to the respondents consumer complaint on the grounds that the State Commission erred in not allowing the written statement to be filed, even though on the date of hearing the counsel for the appellant was ready with the written statement. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellant had advanced a loan of Rs.9.00 lakh to the respondent for the purchase of a commercial vehicle, TATA 2515 Truck bearing registration no. MH 04 EL 8346. The loan was to be repaid in 34 EMIs of Rs.32,450/- each which the respondent consecutively defaulted in payment. The appellant thereafter possessed the hypothecated vehicle and auctioned the same to realise the loan amount. The auction price fell short of Rs.1,76,957/- of the loan amount which was intimated to the respondent on 02.08.2016. The respondent filed a consumer complaint before the State Commission and, upon notice, the counsel for the appellant filed a memo of appearance on 18.08.2017. He was granted 30 days’ time to file his written statement. He thereafter sought a further 15 days’ time on 18.09.2017 to file the written statement. Following the grant of time to file the written statement the matter was taken up again on 05.01.2017 when the matter was further adjourned to 07.12.2017. The matter was once again adjourned on 07.12.2017 to 11.01.2018 when the impugned order came to be passed since the written statement had not been filed. The appellant contends that the technicalities in not filing the written statement within the stipulated time should not impede the interest of justice and therefore, the impugned order be set aside. Counsel for the respondent submitted that the State Commission had granted time of 30 days on 18.08.2017 to file the written version and the same was extended on 18.09.2017 by a further period of 15 days in the presence of the counsel for the appellant. However, the appellant failed to file the written version and therefore, the impugned order of the State Commission came to be passed, which is in order. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the both the parties and perused the records carefully. 4. From the material on record it is seen that both on 18.08.2017 and 18.09.2017 the counsel for the respondent was present and requested for grant and extension of time respectively to file the written version on 18.09.2017. The same was duly considered and granted by the Presiding Member of the Bench of the State Commission. However, the impugned order dated 07.12.2017 records that none was present for the opponent/ appellant herein. The impugned order dated 11.01.2018 reads as below: Mr Avinash More, Advocate present for the complainant. None present for opponents. Complaint is admitted on 18.08.2017. Till today opponents have not filed written version. At the time of admission, order was passed after hearing both parties. Opponents failed to file written version within 45 days from the date of admission. Hence, consumer complaint is proceeded without written version of the opponents. Now, complainant is directed to file affidavit of evidence as per provisions of Section 13 (2) (b) (ii) r/w Section 13 (4) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Matter stands adjourned to 04.04.2018 for filing affidavit of evidence by the complainant. Opponents can participate in the proceeding and can attack on law point only. Application for interim relief will be considered along with main complaint. 5. From the impugned order it is manifest that the appellant can continue to participate in the proceedings and address the legal issues only. Therefore, opportunity has not been closed for him to argue their matter on the legal points. The proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are summary proceedings in view of the fact that the legislation is a welfare legislation intended to provide expeditious relief to consumers. When the appellant was duly represented and had been provided adequate opportunity on two occasions to file their written version at their request and even thereafter when the matter got adjourned the impugned order of the State Commission cannot be faulted for having closed the right of the appellant to file written version in view of the fact that the written version had not been filed as per opportunity provided. In any case, the opportunity to argue the matter on legal points has been kept open for the appellant. No adequate reasons for not filing the written version within time granted by the State Commission have also been provided on record by the appellant. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Limited vs Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., in Civil Appeal nos. 10941 -10942 of 2014 has held that the District Forum has no power to extend the time for filing the response to the complaint beyond the period of 15 days in addition to 30 days as envisaged under section 13 of the Act. It has also held that the commencing point of limitation would be from the date of receipt of notice accompanied by a copy of the complaint by the opposite party. In the case on hand it is manifest from the record that the counsel for the opposite party/ appellant herein was present in person before the State Commission both on 15.12.2017 and 07.09.2021. It is not the case of the complainant that the copy of the complaint was not made available to it. Under the circumstances, the order of the State Commission cannot be found fault with. 7. In view of the foregoing, we are unable to accept the contention of the appellant. The appeal is therefore, dismissed. Parties to bear their own cost. 8. All the pending IAs, if any shall also stand disposed of by this order. | 
