DATED:21.12.2022

ORDER

BY Mr. K. B. SANGANNANAVAR: Pri. Dist. & Session Judge (R)- JUDICIAL MEMBER

1. This is a revision petition filed by OPs No.1 to 3 in CC/48/2022 on the file of Bengaluru Rural and Urban I Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission aggrieved by the order dated 08.09.2022.

2. The Commission examined grounds of revision, impugned order, contents of affidavit sworn in by appellant enclosed to the IAs and heard learned counsel.

3. Learned counsel for the revision petition submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal D.No.2365 of 2017 in the case between Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. and another v. M/s Mampee Timbers and Hardwares Pvt. Ltd. and another condone delay and held the question involved in this appeal whether the time stipulated under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing written statement is mandatory and whether no flexibility is available between the course in the interest of justice and in the last paragraph held –

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.

4. We have to take notice of the fact that the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has came into force with effect from such date as the Central Government may, by notification, appoint and different dates may be appointed for different States and for different provisions of this Act and any reference in any such provision to the commencement of this Act shall be construed as a reference to the coming into force of that provision as per Section 1(3) under Chapter-1 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.  The complaint in question is filed on 14.12.2022 on the file of Commission below only after the new Act namely the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 came into force. 

5. We have taken judicial notice of the fact that 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 (supra) 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 special leave petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

6. It is therefore, in the case on hand, as the Commission below has to be held rightly rejected IA under Order IX Rule 7 Read with 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 petition.  However, the OPs are at liberty to submit documents and participate in the complaint proceedings to assist the Commission below legally to arrive at a right conclusion, to appreciate materials on record.  Thus with such observation we proceed to dispose off the revision petition 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 petition.

        Lady Member                             Judicial Member     

*GGH*