Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/302/2023

ASICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED - Complainant(s)

Versus

KARAN JINDAL - Opp.Party(s)

PUNEET KUMAR

31 Jul 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH

[ADDITIONAL BENCH]

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

Appeal No.	:	A/302/2023
Date  of  Institution	:	01/11/2023
Date   of   Decision	:	31/07/2024

 

 

 

 

 

ASICS India Pvt. Ltd., through its Authorized Representative, Unit No.401, 4^th Floor, World Mark-1, Sector 65, Gurugram – 122001.

 

…… Appellant

 

V E R S U S

 

Karan Jindal son of Sh.Sanjeev Jindal, Resident of House No.1522, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.

 

…… Respondent

 

 

BEFORE:   MRS. PADMA PANDEY       PRESIDING MEMBER

          PREETINDER SINGH        MEMBER

 

 

PRESENT

:

Sh. Puneet Kumar, Advocate for the Appellant (on V.C).

 

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

 

 

1.     This appeal is filed by ASICS India Pvt. Limited (for brevity hereinafter to be referred as “the Appellant”) against order dated 11.09.2023, 12.01.2023 and 03.02.2023, passed 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 No. 696 of 2022, whereby the Ld. District Commission struck off the right of the Appellant to file written version and the written version so filed was ordered to be not taken into consideration for any legal purposes being not filed within the stipulated period of 45 days as provided under the Act. The precise prayer of the Appellant in the present appeal is for setting aside of the impugned orders dated 11.09.2023, 12.01.2023 and 03.02.2023, with a direction to the Ld. District Commission to take the reply filed on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 on record.

 

2.     The only issue in this Appeal relates to striking off defence of the Appellant and not taking into consideration the written version filed by the Opposite Party No.1 (Appellant herein) being not been filed within the stipulated period as provided under the Act. The merits of this case, therefore, need not be discussed.

 

3.     Notice of the present appeal was sent to the Respondent. However, despite service, none turned up on behalf of Respondent.

 

4.     Heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellant and carefully gone through the record with utmost care and circumspection.  

 

5.     Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the impugned orders passed by the Ld. Lower Commission are against the natural justice, illegal & irregular passed in a mechanical manner without appreciating the facts & evidence available on record. He has argued that while passing the aforesaid orders, the Ld. District Commission failed to take note of the fact that Opposite Party No.1 (Appellant herein) has shifted its primary place of business from its old address mentioned on the face of the Complaint to a new address and as such the Complaint & documents of the present case could not be accessed. He has thus submitted that Opposite Party No.1 was not properly served and the opportunity to defend itself has been taken away by the Ld. District Commission by passing invalid orders.

 

6.     However, per material available on record, we do not find any merit in the argument advanced by Learned Counsel for the Appellant. The consumer complaint came to be heard by the Ld. District Commission on 30.09.2022 on which date notice was issued to Opposite Parties for 12.01.2023. As per office report qua notice sent to the Opposite Party No.1 through speed on 07.10.2022 has not yet been received. It was further reported that as per tracking report downloaded from website of India Post “item delivered confirmed” on 11.10.2022. Tracking report is also available on record. The said service through speed post was a proper service, as such, the Opposite Party No.1 deemed to have been served sufficiently. On 12.01.2023, Opposite Party No.1 was duly represented by its counsel Sh.Puneet Kumar, Advocate, who even filed his memo of appearance. However, no power of attorney (Vakalatnama), reply and evidence was filed. Since as per tracking report 45 days had already elapsed, and Opposite Party No.1 has not filed written version to Complaint within stipulated period of 45 days from date of receipt of the notice, the Ld. District Commission by order dated 12.01.2023 struck off the right of Opposite Party No.1 to file written version and the matter was adjourned to 03.02.2023. However, written reply on behalf of the Opposite Parties was filed on 03.02.2023, but was ordered to be read only on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 as the defence of Opposite Party No.1 had already been struck off. In this backdrop, we are unable to accept the submissions advanced by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant, in as much as, when it was duly proved on record that Opposite Party No.1 has duly been served, it cannot remotely be said Opposite Party No.1 has not been properly served or that the impugned orders passed by the Ld. Lower Commission are against the principles of natural justice. Notably, being aggrieved of the orders dated 12.01.2023 and 03.02.2023, the Appellant preferred an application under Section 40 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 seeking review of the above noted orders. It has come on record that the Ld. District Commission after due consideration and appreciation of the entire documentary evidence available on record passed the order dated 11.09.2023 observing that as per Section 40 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 it can review its own order if there is an apparent error on the face of the record, which it did not find in the aforesaid orders. Therefore, to our mind, there is no exceeding exercise of jurisdiction or material irregularity. In this backdrop, we are unable to accept the submissions advanced by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant.

 

7.     It is pertinent to add here, 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.”

8.     Further, the 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.”

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Pronounced

31^st July, 2024

               Sd/-

                                  (PADMA PANDEY)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PREETINDER SINGH)

MEMBER

“Dutt”