Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/14/2024

GOWARRANTY & SERVICE LLP - Complainant(s)

Versus

JAGJINDER SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

SAROJ MALAKAR

23 Oct 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH

[ADDITIONAL BENCH]

============

Appeal No.	:	A/14/2024
Date  of  Institution	:	11/04/2024
Date   of   Decision	:	23/10/2024

 

 

 

 

 

M/s Gowarranty & Service LLP, through its Authorized Representative, Office at 9/5/14 High Land Park, Bhavani Nagar, Andheri East, Mumbai - 400059.   

 

…… Appellant

 

V E R S U S

 

Jagjinder Singh, Resident of H.No.278-A, Police Colony, Chandigarh - 160019.  

…… Respondent

 

BEFORE:   MRS. PADMA PANDEY       PRESIDING MEMBER

          PREETINDER SINGH        MEMBER

 

 

PRESENT

:

Sh. Saroj Malakar, Advocate for the Appellant. Sh. Pranab Bansal, Advocate for the Respondent.

 

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

 

This Appeal is filed against the order dated 15.02.2023 rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh (for brevity hereinafter to be referred as the “Ld. District Commission”) in Consumer Complaint bearing No.CC/553/2022, whereby the Ld. Lower Commission struck off the right of the Appellant (Opposite Party No.1) to file written version as it failed to file the same within the stipulated period of 45 days from the date of receipt of notice. The Appellant (Opposite Party No.1), has thus made the prayer to set-aside the order dated 15.02.2023 and subsequent orders passed by the Ld. District Commission and written submission, defence/ evidence and written notes of argument be allowed to be taken on record in the proceedings.

 

2.     The only issue in this Appeal relates to foreclosure of right of the Appellant (Opposite Party No.1) to file written statement. The merits of this case, therefore, need not be discussed.

 

3.     Heard the Learned Counsel for the Parties and carefully gone through the record with utmost care and circumspection.  

 

4.     After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the material on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the instant Appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

 

5.     Learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that the Appellant Company received summon on 04.08.2022 without any copy of Complaint and annexures attached therewith. After receiving summons, the Appellant engaged a Counsel who appeared before the Ld. District Commission on 18.01.2023 and requested for supply of complete set of Complaint, but his request was not entertained. Eventually, on 27.02.2023, the Appellant filed an application for supply of complete set of complaint which was wrongly declined by the Ld. District Commission on 14.03.2023 citing the reason that defence of Opposite Party No.1 has been struck off on previous date (15.02.2023) in view of the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. AIR 2016 SC 86.  It has been further argued that the Ld. District Commission failed to appreciate the facts and drawn a wrong inference that the Appellant failed to file the written submission within 45 days and hence, the order of the Ld. District Commission suffers from grave infirmity and liable to be set-aside.

 

6.     However, per material available on record, we do not find any weight and substance in the submissions made hereinabove by Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Opposite Party No.1, as pursuant to notice, Sh.Saroj Malakar, Advocate entered appearance on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1 on 18.01.2023 before the Ld. District Commission, but at that time no application was filed or even a mention was made before the Ld. District Commission that Opposite Party No.1 has not received the complete copy of the complaint and annexures thereto. Although there is clear-cut admission of the Appellant Company that it received summon on 04.08.2022, yet it chose not to appear before the Ld. District Commission on 26.10.2022 and the first appearance was made by the Appellant on 18.01.2023 i.e. after about five months from receiving the summon. Record shows, the Appellant never approached the Ld. District Commission within the stipulated time for procuring the complete paper book of the consumer complaint and it was only after its defence got struck off on 15.02.2023, the Appellant filed an application for supplying of complete paper book on 27.02.2023, which was declined by the Ld. District Commission vide order dated 14.03.2023. It defies all logic, wisdom that when on 18.01.2023 the Appellant/ Opposite Party No.1 entered appearance before the Ld. District Commission, why it failed to take cudgels as per Section 38 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 seeking copy of complaint and annexures attached therewith. This shows clear negligence on the part of the Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 to proceed with the matter.

 

7.     To our mind, the litigant owes a duty to be vigilant of his rights and is also expected to be equally vigilant about the proceedings pending in the court of law against him or initiated at his/her instance. There was thus sheer lack of vigilance on the part of the Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 in conducting proceedings before the Ld. District Commission and it cannot be allowed to wriggle out of the situation by stating that it had received incomplete paper book and annexures or illegible copy of Complaint and annexure, as the case may be. It is a general principle of law that law is made to protect only diligent and vigilant people but not the indolent. Law will not protect those people who are careless about their rights. 

 

8.     On the issue of filing of written statement, law is very categoric. Three Judges Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of “New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.” SLP (C) No.2833 of 2014 & SLP (C) Nos.11257-11258 of 2014 decided on 04.12.2015 had an occasion to interpret the scope of period of limitation for filing written statement, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: -

“17.  We are, therefore, of the view that the judgment delivered in the case of Dr.J.J.Merchant (supra) holds the field and therefore, we reiterate the view that the District Forum can grant a further period of 15 days to the opposite party for filing his version or reply and not beyond that.

18.  There is one more reason to follow the law laid down in the case of Dr.J.J.Merchant (supra).  Dr.J.J.Merchant (supra) was decided in 2002, whereas Kailash (supra) was decided in 2005.  As per law laid down by this Court, while deciding the case of Kailsh (supra),  this Court ought to have respected the view expressed in Dr.J.J.Merchant (supra) as the judgment delivered in the case of Dr.J.J.Merchant (supra) was earlier in point of time. The aforesaid legal position cannot be ignored by us and therefore, we are of the opinion that the view expressed in Dr.J.J.Merchant (supra) should be followed.”

9.     Hon’ble Supreme Court in “M/s Daddy’s Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Manisha Bhargava and Anr.” [Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 1240 of 2021] decided on 21.02.2021 observed as follows:-

“5.    In any case, in view of the earlier decision of this Court in the case of Dr.J.J.Merchant (supra) and the subsequent authoritative decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (2020) 5 SCC 757, consumer fora has no jurisdiction and/or power to accept the written statement beyond the period of 45 days, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned National Commission.

6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the present special leave petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.”

10.     From the foregoing discussion and the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court, we are of the view that the order passed by the Ld. District Commission is justified. The Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 failed to show any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference in the findings recorded by the Ld. District Commission. The appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly, dismissed with no order as to cost.

 

11.     The pending application(s), if any, stand disposed off accordingly.

 

12.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

 

13.     The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

23rd Oct.,2024

              Sd/-

                                  (PADMA PANDEY)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(PREETINDER SINGH)

MEMBER

“Dutt”