DATED:26.06.2023

O R D E R

BY HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

1. These are the Revision Petitions filed by OP Nos.1 to 3 in Consumer Complaint Nos.87 to 90 of 2022 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Belagavi, aggrieved by the order dated 06.12.2022.

2. The Commission examined grounds of revision, impugned order and heard learned counsels.

3. Learned counsel for revision petitioners submit that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case between Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., and others v. Mampee Timbers and Hardware Pvt. Ltd. and others held –

“We considered it appropriate to direct that pending decision of the larger bench, it will be opened to the District For a to accept the version filed beyond the stipulated of 45 days in an appropriate case, on suitable terms, including payment of cost to proceed with the matter.”

4. Learned counsel for respondents submit that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case between New India Assurance Co. Ltd., v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd held –

“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 Consumer Protection Act;”

5. Commission gone through the above cited ratios laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. However, Commission has to take judicial notice of the fact that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case between M/s Daddys Builder Private Limited v. Manisha Bhargava on 11.02.2021 held –

“In any case, in view of the earlier decision of this Court in the case of J.J. Merchant (supre) and the subsequent authoritative decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (2020) 5 SCC 757, Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction and/or power to accept the written statement beyond the period of 45 days, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned National Commission”

In para-6 –

• In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the present leave petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

6. It is therefore, the Commission below has to be held right in rejecting IA No.1 filed under Section 151 of CPC holding that beyond 45 days Commission has no jurisdiction to accept the written statement, does not call for any interference in this revision petitions.  However, the OPs are at liberty to submit their documents and participate in the complaint proceedings to consider as to why the case of complainants cannot be considered. Thus with such observation we proceed to dispose off the revision petitions filed under Section 47(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

7. Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties to the revision petitions.

  Lady Member                 Judicial Member                 President

*GGH*