Uttarakhand

StateCommission

RP/11/2022

The Oberai Motors - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sh. Saurabh Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. S.M. Joshi

14 Jul 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND

DEHRADUN

 

REVISION PETITION NO. 11 / 2022

 

The Oberai Motors

(Unit of S.L. Oberai Minerals Pvt. Ltd.)

P.O. Majra, Saharanpur Road

Dehradun – 248171

…… Revisionist

 

Versus

 

1.         Sh. Saurabh Singh S/o Sh. Ajai Singh

            R/o House No. 63, Lane No. 2

            Alaknanda Enclave, G.M.S. Road

            Dehradun – 248001

 

2.         Sales Head, Tata Motors India

            4^th Floor, Ahura Centre – 82

            Mahakali Caves Road, MIDC, Andheri East

            Mumbai – 400093, Maharashtra   

…… Opposite Parties

 

Sh. S.M. Joshi, Learned Counsel for the Revisionist

 

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.S. Tripathi, President

               Mr. Udai Singh Tolia,                         Member-II

                                   

Dated: 14/07/2022

ORDER

(Per: Justice D.S. Tripathi, President):

 

This revision petition under Section 47(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has been preferred against the impugned order dated 06.06.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun (in short “The District Commission”) in consumer complaint No. 448 of 2022; Sh. Saurabh Singh Vs. Oberai Motors and another, by which opportunity of filing written statement by the revisionist, who was opposite party No. 1 to the consumer complaint, has been closed.

 

2.       Facts giving rise to this revision petition, in brief, are that the aforesaid consumer complaint was filed before the District Commission, in which notice for filing written statement was issued to the opposite parties.  The consumer complaint was taken up by the District Commission on 06.06.2022 and it was observed by learned District Commission that the said date is the last date for filing the written statement by the revisionist / opposite party No. 1 before the District Commission, hence in the light of case law of Hon’ble Apex Court, the opportunity of filing the written statement by the revisionist was closed by the impugned order dated 06.06.2022.  Being aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned order, this revision petition has been preferred by the revisionist.

 

3.       We have heard learned counsel for the revisionist at the admission stage itself and perused the record.

 

4.       The consumer complaint was filed before the District Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short “the Act”).  The provision for filing written statement by the opposite party to the consumer complaint, is envisaged in Section 38(3)(a) of the Act, which reads as under:

 

“(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.”

 

5.       Accordingly, as per the above-quoted provision, it is crystal clear that the limitation period of 30 days’ for filing the written statement by the opposite party to the consumer complaint, has been provided under the Act and the said period can not be extended beyond a period of 15 days’, as may be granted by the District Commission.  Learned counsel for the revisionist has not disputed this fact that the limitation period provided under the Act for filing the written statement by the revisionist has expired and the revisionist could not file the written statement within the limitation period.  It is noteworthy that the limitation period for filing the written statement by the opposite party under the provisions of Section 13(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is same, as provided under the provisions of Section 38(3)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. 

 

6.       Now, the only question arises whether the limitation period provided under the Act for filing the written statement can be extended beyond the aforesaid period of limitation.  This question has been considered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 7546 of 2021; Diamond Exports and others Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and others, decided on 14.12.2021, in which relying upon the judgment rendered by Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2020) 5 SCC 757, it has been held that:

 

“8. The judgment of the Constitution Bench in New India Assurance Company Limited (supra) has held that the outer limit of time for filing a written statement in Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is binding.  The conclusion in the decision of the Constitution Bench is extracted below:

 

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.

 

63. This judgment to operate prospectively.  The referred questions are answered accordingly.”

 

7.       Thus, the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court is crystal clear that the limitation period provided under the Act for filing written statement by the opposite party to the consumer complaint, can not be extended.

 

8.       Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this matter and law laid down by the Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited (supra), we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by learned District Commission does not suffer from any legal infirmity, warranting interference by this Commission.  Consequently, the revision petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

 

9.       Revision Petition is dismissed.  No order as to costs.                

 

 

(U.S. TOLIA)                            (JUSTICE D.S. TRIPATHI)

               Member-II                                                President

 

K