Today was fixed for passing order in the MA Case.
By virtue of this Commission’s order dtd. 03.10.2023 the corresponding CC case was proceeded ex parte against OP 2 as written version could not be filed within the stipulated time frame as prescribed by the statute.
The OP Bank by filing this MA Case has prayed for passing an order setting aside the ex parte order passed by this Commission and for allowing the OPs to contest the case on merit. Besides, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing of the written version has also been filed by the OP Insurance Company.
However the OP of this MA case (Complainant of the CC case has not filed any W/O so far as the instant MA petition of the applicant is concerned)
The reasons for delayed submission of W/V have been explained as follows.
‘that due to mistake the copy of the summon had not been found by the OP no. 2(of the CC case)/State Bank of India Chandernagore Branch.’
It is further explained that ‘very recently at the time of Audit Inspection of the Branch, the copy of the summon has been recovered by the OP No. 2/ State Bank of India, Chandernagore Branch and was sent to the Ld. Advocate for inspection of the case.’
Thus, the reason assigned to non-submission of the written version within the statutory time period is misplacement of the notice. It is claimed that there was no intentional negligence on the OP Bank’s part.
Materials on records are perused.
However, the reasons assigned appear filmsy and frivolous. It is not known what sort of ‘mistake’ on the Bank’s part resulted in the misplacement of the notice.
The Bank’s explanation indicates that had there been no Audit Inspection in the Branch, the notice would not be recovered.
03.10.2023 was the deadline for submission of the W/V by OP 2 of the CC case whereas the MA case along with W/V have been filed on 06.03.2024 i.e. after more than four months. This indicates that the OP Bank on receipt of the notice cared a fig for the same and treated the same as a scrap paper.
However, in the petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.1240 of 2021 related to the case of M/S Daddy’s Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Another Vs. Manisha Bhargava and Another, Hon’ble Apex Court, referring to the earlier decision of that Court in the case of J.J.Merchant (Supra) and the subsequent authoritative decision of the Constitution Bench of that Court in the case of New India assurance Company Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt.Ltd. (2020) 5 SCC 757, observed that Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction and/or power to accept the written statement beyond the period of 45 days.
In view of the above and on consideration of all other allied aspects this Commission cannot be inclined to set aside the earlier ex parte order passed against the OP No.2 of the CC case.
Resultantly the MA case stands dismissed.
