APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS

PRONOUNCED ON:    2^nd  November  2017

ORDER

PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER

          These first appeals have been filed under Section 19 read with Section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 30.01.2017, passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in Consumer Complaints No. 301/2016, 303/2016 and 304/2016 by which, it was directed as follows:-

          “6.     Hence, application of the OP for extension of time for filing of the written statement is rejected.  In view of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 10941-10942 of 2013 titled ‘New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.’ dated 04.12.2015, further time cannot be granted for filing written version.  The right of OP to file written statement stands closed.

          7.      Complainant to file evidence by way of affidavit along with written arguments within 8 weeks.  OP shall also be at liberty to file written arguments on the aforesaid period.”

2.      Briefly stated, the facts of these cases are that consumer complaints no. 301/2016, 303/2016 and 304/2016 were filed before the State Commission by the complainants Bhanwar Singh, Tahar Singh and Ranbir Singh against three Directors of M/s. TDI Infracorp Ltd., alleging deficiency in service for not handing over the possession of the flats in question, for which they had paid the necessary amounts as early as in the year 2005.  The notice of the said complaints were issued to the respondents, who put in appearance through counsel.  Vide order dated 30.11.2016, passed by the State Commission, the opposite parties no. 1 to 3 i.e. the Directors of M/s. TDI Infra Corp Ltd. were deleted from the array of parties and M/s. TDI Infra Corp Ltd. and TDI Infrastructure Ltd. were impleaded as the opposite parties/respondents.  It is stated in the order dated 30.11.2016  that a copy of the complaint was supplied to TDI Infrastructure Ltd. and they were asked to file their written version to the complaint within 30 days, with advance copy to the complainants.  However, the amended complaint is stated to have been filed on 14.12.2016, which was received by the State Commission on 14.12.2016, as evident from their stamp on the application filed by the learned counsel for the complainants.  Vide impugned order dated 30.01.2017, the State Commission closed the right of opposite parties to file written statement and rejected their application for extension of time for filing the same, relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 10941-10942 of 2013, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (Pvt.) Ltd., decided on 04.12.2015.  It is against this order that the present appeals have been made by the opposite parties.

3.      During hearing before us, the learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties stated that as evident from the material on record, a copy of the amended complaint, filed by the complainants was received in the State Commission on 14.12.2016.  The learned counsel submitted that taking into account the date of filing of the amended complaint, they had been able to file their written version before the State Commission on the 45^th day and hence, the State Commission should not have refused to entertain the same.  The learned counsel has drawn attention to an application, seeking extension of time in filing reply to the complaint, in which it was stated that a copy of the complaint was served on the opposite parties on 15.12.2016 and hence, they had time to file the reply before 15.01.2017 as per Section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  They had, however, sought permission of the State Commission to extend the time by 15 days as permissible under Section 13(2) of the Act.  The State Commission had, therefore, taken an erroneous view in not granting them extension of time by 15 days i.e. upto 30.01.2017.  The present appeals should, therefore, be accepted and the written version filed by them on 30.01.2017 should be taken on record.

4.      Per contra, the learned counsel for the complainants has drawn attention to an order dated 01.09.2016, recorded by the State Commission, in which it was stated that copy of the complaint was supplied to the opposite parties on that date i.e. 01.09.2016 and they were directed to file written version of the same within 30 days.  In the order recorded on 30.11.2016 also, it was stated that copy of the complaint had been supplied to them.  There was no justification for grant of more time to the opposite parties for filing the written version, therefore.  The learned counsel further stated that since the opposite parties had challenged only an interim order, they were required to file revision petition under Section 21(b) of the Act, rather than filing appeals under Section 19 read with Section 21(a)(ii) of the Act.  The appeals in the present form are, therefore, not maintainable.

5.      We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.

6.      A careful examination of the facts and circumstances on record indicates that vide order dated 30.11.2016, the previous respondents no. 1 to 3, who were Directors of the opposite parties were deleted from the array of parties and two new respondents including the present appellants were impleaded as parties.  It is clear, therefore, that any orders passed in proceedings in the consumer complaint before 30.11.2016, have no relevance, in so far as the time permitted for filing the written version is concerned.  Further, it has come on record that the amended consumer complaints were filed by the learned counsel for the complainants on 14.12.2016.  The case of the appellants/opposite parties is that a copy of the same was served upon them on 15.12.2016.  However, even if the period of 45 days for filing the written statement is counted from 14.12.2016, the said time would have expired on 28.01.2017, while the next date of hearing was 30.01.2017, meaning thereby that there was a delay of two days only in filing the written statement.

7.      The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. vs. M/s. Mampee Timbers and Hardwares Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., passed in Civil Appeal No. 2990/2017 on 10.02.2017, have laid down as follows:-

          “We consider it appropriate to direct that pending decision of the larger bench, it will be open to the concerned Fora to accept the written statement filed beyond the stipulated time of 45 days in an appropriate case, on suitable terms, including the payment of costs, and to proceed with the matter.”

8.      The facts and circumstances of the case make it clear that the names of the opposite parties in the consumer complaints were ordered to be changed vide order recorded on 30.11.2016.  Later on, the amended complaints were filed on behalf of the complainants.  It is justifiable, therefore, that the minor delay of two days in filing the written statement in the present consumer complaints, as brought out above, is condoned on ‘suitable terms’.  The said delay is ordered to be condoned on payment of Rs. 2,000/- by the appellant/OP to each of the respondents within a period of four weeks from today.

9.      Based on the foregoing discussion, these appeals are allowed and the State Commission is directed to accept the written version of the appellants/opposite parties, subject to payment of cost as stated above.  The State Commission may then proceed to dispose of the consumer complaints in accordance with law.