1.      This first appeal has been filed by the appellant, M/s. TDI Infrastructure Ltd. against the order dated 22.07.2016 passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (in short ‘the State Commission’) in Complaint No.321 of 2015.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that a consumer complaint No.321 of 2015 was filed by the complainant, Rita Gupta, alleging deficiency against the opposite party/appellant herein. By the impugned order dated 22.07.2016, right of the appellant/opposite party to file the written statement has been closed. 

3.        Hence, the present appeal.

4.      Heard the parties and perused the record.

5.      The learned counsel for the appellant stated that the matter was being fixed for settlement for the last two dates and therefore, written statement could not be filed.  He stated that on 04.04.2016, the learned State Commission has passed the following order:-

“Notice received unserved as left.  Counsel for complainant stated with OP-2 is merely broker and he gives up.

 Counsel for OP states that OP is willing to hand over another plot no.HC-4/21 in Kundali. The husband of complainant will visit the site as per date and time to be communicated by counsel for OP for next 10 days. The complainant would report about acceptability of the said plot or some other alternative plot there.

List on 4.5.2016”.

6.      Further it was pointed out that on the next date 04.05.2016, the following order was passed:-

“It is stated that counsel for OP-1 could intimate the date and time of visit by complainant as AR of OP has resigned. Now, the date and time fixed is 24.05.2016 at 11:00 A.M.

Complainant husband and OPs responsible officer to remain present on in the office of OP-1 at Kondli, Sonipat the said date and time.

Re-notify on 22.07.2016 for further proceedings”.

7.      The learned counsel emphasised that till this point, there was no mention of the written statement.  However, on 22.07.2016, the State Commission has abruptly closed the right of the appellant to file the written statement.

8.      The learned counsel for the appellant also stated that the case of the appellant is very strong on merits as the complainant is a re-allotte and the plot in question is a commercial plot.  Thus, it is necessary to rebut the claims of the complainant by way of filing written statement.

9.      On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent argued that the State Commission in its impugned order dated 22.07.2016 has clearly recorded that the opposite party has put in appearance on 16.12.15 and was given copy of complaint and it was directed to opposite party to file written version within four weeks, but he did not do so till date.  With this observation of the State Commission, it is quite clear that opposite party was specifically directed to file the written statement within four weeks, but written statement was not filed even after six months.  Thus, it cannot be said that opposite party was not given an opportunity to file the written statement.  He himself has chosen not to file the written statement.  The learned counsel also argued that as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Civil Appeal Nos.10941-10942 of 2013, decided on December 04, 2015 (SC) the written statement cannot be allowed to be filed beyond the maximum period of 45 days from the receipt of notice as prescribed in the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  Thus, the revision petition may be dismissed.

10.    We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by both sides and have examined the record.  It is true that the two orders filed by the appellant dated 04.04.2016 & 04.05.2016 do not mention anything about filling of the written statement and deal only with the settlement process between the parties, but it was the duty of the opposite party to file the written statement as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, particularly when the copy of the complaint was given to him and there was a specific direction by the State Commission vide its order dated 16.12.2015 to file written statement within a period of four weeks. If it was not possible to file the written statement within four weeks, the opposite party could have filed an application before the State Commission to extend the time by 15 days as provided in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has clarified in unambiguous terms that written statement cannot be filed after 45 days from the receipt of notice in this regard. The complainant has also not filed copy of the order dated 16.12.2015 which only means that the petitioner agrees that he received the copy of the complaint and that he was directed by the State Commission to file the written statement within four weeks. The appellant did not file the W.S. till 22.07.2016. i.e. even after six months. In the light of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the petitioner cannot be allowed to file his written statement before the State Commission now.

11.    Learned counsel for the respondent was asked during the arguments whether the complainant/respondent would be agreeable to taking written statement on record on cost to be paid by the appellant to the respondent.  However, the same was refused by the learned counsel for the respondent. 

12.    Based on the above discussion and in the light of judgement in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (supra) we find no merit in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 

13. Consequently, appeal is dismissed. 

14. No order as to cost.