O R D E R    S H E E T

DATE OF ORDER

 ORDER WITH SIGNATURE

ORDER OF THE REGISTRAR ON OFFICE NOTING

01.09.2020

            THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING

                   None for the petitioner.

                   None for the respondent.

                   Perused the impugned order dated  05.05.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (For short District Commission) in C.C.No.52/2018 whereby the District Commission has ordered to proceed ex-parte against the petitioner/opposite party as the petitioner failed to appear and to file reply before the District Commisision even after lapse of two months from the date of service of notice of complaint upon it.

                   Having gone through the impugned order and the record we find that the service of notice of complaint on petitioner was effected on 05.03.2018. Thereafter on 07.04.2018, 15.04.2018 and on 05.05.2018 no one appeared for the petitioner/opposite party and no reply of

                                -2-

the complaint was filed.  In the circumstances, since even after the extended time of 45 days as is the upper permissible limit no reply was filed, the District Commission had no option but to close the right of petitioner/opposite party to file reply of the compliant.

                In our considered view the District Commission has committed no error in passing the impugned order.  The question as to whether the District Commission can extend the period fixed under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to file reply of the complaint is no longer ‘res integra’. The Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court on a reference being made to it in its judgment passed in New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage on 04.03.2020 has held as under:

                “That the District Forum has no power to extend the time for filing the response to the complaint beyond the period 15 days in addition to 30 days as is envisaged under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act; and that the commencing point of limitation of 30 days under Section 13 of the Consumer

-3-

Protection Act would be from the date of receipt of notice accompanied with the complaint by the opposite party and not mere receipt of the notice of the complaint.”

                  In view of the aforesaid authorarative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in our considered view, the District Commission had no power to extend the time for filing reply to complainit beyond 15 days in addition to 30 days as envisaged under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (For short Act of 1986).

                  This Commission in similar circumstances vide order dated 31.08.2020 passed in Revision Petition No. 61/2019 (Dr. A. K. Pathak & Anr Vs Shalu Raikwar) and order dated 01.09.2020 passed in Revision Petition No. 56/2019 (Aditya Birla Health Insurance Company Limited Vs Jeevan & Anr) as also in Revision Petition No. 18/2020 (A.U.Small Finance Bank Vs Jeevan & Anr) has dealt with the issue and in terms of the order passed by the Supreme Court in Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage, supra has held that the District Commission is not empowered to

                                    -4-

extend the period fixed under Section 13 of the Act of 1986 for filing reply of the complaint.                          

                 In the circumstances, no case is made out for interference in the impugned order.

As a result, the revision petition fails and is dismissed.

(Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar)  (Dr. Monika Malik)

                  President                      Member