ORDER (ORAL) Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner states that in order to avoid further delay in the disposal of the Complaint by the District Forum, the Petitioner will not have any objection if the Written Version on behalf of the Opposite Parties, admittedly filed after the expiry of the prescribed statutory period, is taken on record, provided the Petitioner is adequately compensated for the enormous delay caused in the disposal of the Complaint. It is evident from the orders passed by both the Fora below, wherein they have taken the view that the period prescribed for filing the Written Version in Section 13 (2) (a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is procedural and not mandatory, that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., I (2016) CPJ 1 (SC) was not brought to their notice. Nevertheless, having regard to the statement made by the learned Counsel and the recent order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. And Anr. vs. M/s Mampee Timbers And Hardwares Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. (Diary No.2365 of 2017), we dispose of the Revision Petition with a direction -4- that the Written Version filed on behalf of the Opposite Parties shall be taken on record only subject to the Opposite Parties’ paying to the Complainant a lump sum of ₹12,000/- as costs for causing the delay in disposal of the Complaint. The costs shall be paid before the District Forum on the date fixed before it. Since issue of notice in this Petition will cause further delay in disposal of the Complaint, we deem it unnecessary to issue notice to the Respondents, more so when no prejudice would be caused to them by this order, as imposition of costs is purely within the domain of our discretion. The Revision Petition stands disposed of in the above terms. Order dasti. |
