KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION No.92/2022

ORDER DATED:13.01.2023

(Against the Order in C.C.No.181/2022 of DCDRC, Malappuram)

PRESENT:

REVISION PETITIONER:

(by Adv. G. Kalyan Jhabakh)

Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

O R D E R

HON’BLE JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN: PRESIDENT

          The 1^st opposite party in C.C.No.181/2022 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Malappuram (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum for short) is the Revision Petitioner.  The Revision Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 01.07.2022 passed by the District Commission declining to grant extension of time to file written version.  The 1^st respondent/complainant had filed the complaint alleging excessive engine oil consumption, manufacturing defects and seeking replacement of the vehicle or in the alternative return of the price of the vehicle.  The Revision Petitioner received the notice from the Commission on 09.06.2022.  The vakalath was filed by their counsel on 06.07.2022.  The case was posted for filing written version on 21.10.2022.  According to the Revision Petitioner, since the complaint was in the regional language, considerable time had to be spent securing an English translation.  Since the written version had not been made ready for filing, the counsel sought time on 21.07.2022.  But, time was not granted.  The case was then posted for filing proof affidavit of the complainant.

          2.       According to the counsel for the Revision Petitioner the District Commission seriously erred in not granting the time sought for.  It is submitted that, the difficulties of the Revision Petitioner in having the version prepared and filed was not given any consideration at all.  It is further contended that the Revision Petitioner had, forty five days to file the written version, as per the statutory provision.  The said period of forty five days from the date of receipt of notice on 09.06.2022 would have expired only on 24.07.2022.  Therefore, the District Commission ought to have granted time as requested for on 21.07.2022.  For the above reason, the counsel seeks interference with the order under revision.

          3.       This revision has come up before us for admission hearing.  We have heard the counsel for the Revision Petitioner.  We have considered the contentions advanced before us but we find no substance in them. 

          4.       This is for the reason that, the time available to an opposite party to file the version is only thirty days and not forty five days as contended by the Revision Petitioner.  A reference to Section 38(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (the Act for short) is profitable in this regard.  The said provision to the extent relevant for our present purpose is extracted below:

(3)   The District Commission shall, if the complaint admitted by it under sub-section (2) of section 36 relates to goods in respect of which the procedure specified in sub-section (2) cannot be followed, or if the complaint relates to any services,—

(a) refer a copy of such complaint to the opposite party directing him to give his version of the case within a period of thirty days or such extended period not exceeding fifteen days as may be granted by the District Commission;

(Emphasis supplied)

A perusal of the above provision makes it abundantly clear that the time for filing written version is only thirty days.  The said period can be extended by a further period of fifteen days, which is the maximum, at the discretion of the District Commission.  Since extension of time beyond thirty days is within the discretion of the District Commission, it is implied that such extension cannot be claimed by any litigant as a matter of right.  It has been held by the Apex Court that the grant of such extension shall not be as a matter of course and would be dependent on the facts and circumstances of each case.  The above being the position of law, the contention of the Revision Petitioner is rejected.  In the present case, since the Revision Petitioner had admittedly received notice on 09.06.2022 the period of thirty days for filing the written version expired on 09.07.2022.  Admittedly no extension of time was granted by the District Commission in this case.  They had attempted to file their version only on 21.07.2022, long after the statutory time limit had expired.  Therefore, the District Commission was fully justified in refusing to grant time to them.

          5.       The Revision Petitioner has made a fervent plea before us to permit them to file the written statement and contest the matter.  We notice from the proceedings produced that, the 2^nd opposite party who is the dealer of the vehicle has already filed version and is contesting the case.  We have no power to extend the time limit for filing version, in view of the Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (2020)5 SCC 757.  In the said decision it has been held as follows:

62.     “To conclude, we hold that our answer to the first question is 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 is envisaged under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act; and the answer to the second question is that the commencing point of limitation of 30 days under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act would be from the date of receipt of the notice accompanied with the complaint by the opposite party, and not mere receipt of the notice of the complaint.”

          6.       In view of the above binding dictum, we find no infirmity in the order under revision.  This revision fails and is accordingly dismissed.

SL