Sri Subhra Sankar Bhatta, Judicial Member

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 18.12.2020 vide order no. 7 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata, Unit—II (Central) (hereinafter referred to as the “District Commission”) in connection with Complaint Case no. 141/2020 whereby the Ld. District Commission was pleased to reject the Miscellaneous Application dated 01.12.2020 filed by the OP No. 1/Revisionist Petitioner herein seeking condonation of delay in filing the written version at a belated stage.

By virtue of the impugned order dated 18.12.2020 the Ld. District Commission rejected the application filed by OP No. 1/Revisionist herein seeking condonation of delay in filing the written version to the Consumer complaint. Undisputedly, the written version was filed beyond the stipulated period of limitation as provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) i.e. beyond the prescribed period of 45 days. It is not in dispute that as per provision under Section 38(3) of the Act, 2019 the written version is required to be filed within 30 days and the said period can be extended by a further period of 15 days.

Ld. Advocate appearing for the Revisionist/Petitioner has vehemently submitted that due to Pandemic Covid—19 scenario the OP No.1/Revisionist-Petitioner herein could not engage any legal practitioner and could not also appear before the Ld. District Commission within the due date. It is submitted that the written version was filed on 01.12.2020 in the complaint case. According to the Ld. Counsel the Revisionist/Petitioner had no intention to cause delay in filing the written version within the stipulated period as prescribed under the Act. It is also submitted that there is no laches on the part of the Revisionist/Petitioner as Pandemic Covid—19 scenario was prevailing in the whole country causing disruption of normal life. It is further submitted that the application for condonation of delay came up for consideration before the Ld. District Commission on 18.12.2020 and after hearing both sides the Ld. District Commission was pleased to reject the prayer dated 01.12.2020 and also disposed of the Miscellaneous application being no. 294/2020 arising out of Complaint Case No. CC/141/2020. It has been categorically contended that the District Commission ought to have condoned the delay in filing the written version. Ld. Counsel has also submitted that the Hon`ble Supreme Court of India in SUO MOTU Writ Petition (C) No. C/2020 has been pleased to extend the period of limitation.  According to the Ld. Counsel the said ruling is applicable in filing of the written version beyond the stipulated period as prescribed under the Act.

On the other hand Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent/Complainant has drawn my attention to the impugned order dated 18.12.2020 of the Ld. District Commission and boldly urged that after considering the present position of law under the new Act, 2019 the Ld. District Commission arrived at the conclusion that there is no such provisions within the four corners of the Act for condonation of delay in filing the written version beyond the stipulated period of 30+15=45 days as the case may be. According to the Ld. Counsel there is no irregularity, illegality or impropriety in the order of the Ld. District Commission.  It has been categorically submitted that despite receipt of the notice the OP/Revisionist did not turn up.  It is an admitted position that the Revisionist/OP no. 1 had received the notice of the complaint case on 14.10.2020 and the next date was fixed on 13.11.2020 for filing written version by the OPs but Revisionist/OP no. 1 did not enter appearance and consequently the complaint case was proceeded ex parte against OP no. 1.  Ld. Counsel has also submitted that OP no. 2 appeared on receipt of notice and also contested the complaint case by filing written version. Ld. Counsel has prayed for outright dismissal of the present Revision Petition with compensatory cost.

Having heard the respective Ld. Counsels for the respective parties to the Revision Petition and regard being had to Section 38(3)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 we are compelled to hold that there is no such provision within the four corners of the said Act to condone the prescribed period of limitation in filing the written version. Thus, being the position of Law it can be safely held that written version cannot be and should not be accepted beyond the period of 30+15=45 days as the case may be.

In J.J Merchant—vs.—Shrinath Chaturbedi reported in (2002) 6 SCC 635..(AIR 2002 SC 2931) it was observed by the Hon’ble Three Judges Bench that Consumer Fora has no power to extend the time for filing a reply/written statement beyond the period prescribed under the Act. However, thereafter despite the above Three Judge Bench decision, a contrary view was taken by a Two Judge Bench and therefore, the matter was referred to the Five Judge Bench and the constitutional Bench has reiterated the view taken in the case of J.J Merchant (supra) and has again reiterated that the Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction to accept the written statement beyond the statutory period prescribed under the Act i.e. 45 days in all. The Hon’ble National Commission has also pleased to observe that there was no mandate that in all the cases where the written statement was submitted beyond the stipulated period of 45 days, the delay must be condoned and the written statement must be taken on record.

Herein the present case the notices were duly served upon both the OPs on 14.10.2020 and the next date was fixed on 13.11.2020 for filing written version. It also reveals from the impugned order that on 13.11.2020 OP No. 2 appeared with a prayer for extension of time to file the written version and the case was again posted on 01.12.2020 for filing written version by the OP No. 2. But OP No. 1 neither appeared on 13.11.2020 nor filed any application for extension to file written version. Consequently, the case was proceeded ex parte against OP No. 1. The case record goes to show that OP No. 2 filed written version on 01.12.2020 i.e. beyond the stipulated period of limitation. Fact remains that the Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction and/or power to accept the written version beyond the stipulated period of 45 days. We find no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Ld. District Commission.

Considering all aspects from all angles and having considered the submissions of both sides and regard being had to the cited decision reported in AIR 2021 Supreme Court 946: AIR Online 2021 SC 52 M/s Daddys Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Another—vs.—Manisha Bhargaba and Another and keeping in mind the provisions of Section 38 of the New Act we have no hesitation to conclude that Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction and/or power to accept written version beyond the period of 45 days. The facts and circumstances of the present case and the facts and circumstances of the reported decision (SUO MOTU Writ Petition (Civil)  3/2020 of the Hon`ble Apex Court) are not alike in nature. We find no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Ld. District Commission.

Resultantly, the present Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

That the present Revision Petition being no. RP/45/2020 is dismissed on contest against Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 but considering the circumstances without any order as to costs.

The order dated 18.12.2020 vide order no. 7 passed by the Ld. District Commission in connection with Complaint Case No. CC/141/2020 is hereby affirmed.

Ld. Commission below is directed to proceed with the complaint case in accordance with law.

Let a copy of this judgment and order be transmitted to the Ld. District Commission forthwith for information and taking necessary action.

Stay granted on 03.02.2021 vide order no. 2 is vacated forthwith.

Thus, the Revision Petition stands disposed of.

Note accordingly.