JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

          The complainant/respondent took membership of Gold Gym at East of Kailash.  On 19.05.2015, he went to the gym in a Renault Duster, MUV which had purchased about three years earlier for a consideration of about Rs.13 lacs.  He handed over the keys of the vehicle to the parking attendant who gave a parking token to the complainant.  However, when he came back after exercising in the gym, he was informed by the attendant that the vehicle had been stolen.  The vehicle, according to the complainant, had Rs.32,000/- in cash, besides its original documents, ATM Card and Cheque Book of the complainant etc.  Alleging deficiency on the part of the petitioner in rendering services to him, the complainant approached the concerned State Commission by way of a Consumer Complaint. 

2.      On notice of the Consumer Complaint being issued to the appellant, it was served for 02.12.2015.  On that date, the counsel for the appellant entered appearance, obtained a copy of the complaint and was granted four weeks to file written version to the complaint.  However, the written version was not filed within four weeks from 02.12.2015.  When the matter came up before the State Commission on 02.02.2016, the learned counsel for the appellant wanted to file the written version but the State Commission relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Civil Appeals No. 10941-10942 and connected matters decided on 04.12.2015, declined to accept the written version.  An application u/s 17 of the Consumer Protection Act was then filed by the appellant which was dismissed while deciding the Consumer Complaint on merits. 

3.      Vide impugned order dated 03.08.2016, the State Commission directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.14.64 lacs to the complainant alongwith alongwith 12% per annum from the date of the theft and compensation cum cost of litigation quantified at Rs.2 lacs.  Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the appellant is before this Commission. 

4.      Two applications have been filed by the appellant, one for amendment of the memorandum of the appeal and the other seeking permission to file additional evidence.

5.      In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 10.02.2017 in Civil Appeal No. 2990 of 2017 Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Mampee Timbers and Hardwares Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., the State Commission could have condoned the delay in filing the written version and could have taken the written version on record when it was sought to be filed by the learned counsel for the appellant on 02.02.2016.  It would be pertinent to note here that on 02.12.2015, the State Commission had granted four weeks to the appellant to file its written version.  Therefore, by 02.02.2016, there was delay of only about one month in filing the written version.  The said delay could have condoned if sufficient cause was shown. 

6.      The case of the appellant is that its counsel Mrs. Surbhi Agarwal was going through Post-Partum Period after delivery of her baby in the month of November 2015 and therefore, her junior had appeared before the State Commission and had collected the copy of the Consumer Complaint.  Since the main counsel was going through Post-Partum Period, the written version could not be finalized and filed by her before 02.02.2016.  Considering the ground disclosed by the appellant, I am satisfied that there was sufficient justification for the delay in filing the written version which cannot be said to be abnormal, the said delay being only about one month.  Therefore, it would only be fair and reasonable to give an opportunity to the appellant to contest the Consumer Complaint on merits subject of course to payment of suitable cost to the complainant. 

7.      Though the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the State Commission did not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, I am not considering the said plea since in my opinion, the plea needs to be considered by the State Commission while deciding the Consumer Complaint afresh on merits. 

8.      For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned order is set aside and the appellant is permitted to file its written version to the Consumer Complaint before the concerned State Commission within two weeks from today subject to payment of Rs.50,000/- as cost to the complainant before filing the written version.  The parties shall appear before the State Commission on 31.03.2020. 

The State Commission shall decide the complaint afresh on merits after considering the written version and the evidence which the appellant may seek to produce in support of his case.  The amount which the appellant had deposited pursuant to the interim order of this Commission, shall remain lying deposited and the final order with respect to the disbursal of the said amount and interest which accrues on that amount, shall be passed by the State Commission while deciding the Consumer Complaint afresh on merits.