Chandigarh

StateCommission

RP/12/2023

Axis Bank Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Smt. Nisha - Opp.Party(s)

Shivoy Dhir Adv.

20 Mar 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH

[ADDITIONAL BENCH]

============

Revision Petition No.	:	RP/12/2023
Date  of  Institution	:	13/03/2023
Date   of   Decision	:	20/03/2023

 

 

 

 

 

Axis Bank Limited, through its Manager, SCO 141-142, Madhya Marg, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh – 160009.

 

…… Petitioner

 

V E R S U S

 

[1]   Smt. Nisha widow of Sh. Varinder Guleria deceased.

 

[2]   Ms. Kashish Guleria minor daughter of Sh.Varinder Guleria deceased.

 

[3]   Master Trikush Guleria minor son of Sh.Varinder Guleria deceased.

 

[4]   Smt. Vidya Devi wife of Sh. Ramesh Chand, mother of Sh.Varinder Guleria deceased.

 

     All residents of Village Samana, P.O. Bari, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh.

 

     2^nd Address:   Residents of H.No. 738/1, Welfare Colony, Bapu Dham, Sector 26, Chandigarh.

 

[5]   The New India Assurance Co. Limited, Regional Office, through Regional Manager, SCO 36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh – 160017.

…… Respondents

 

BEFORE:   MRS. PADMA PANDEY       PRESIDING MEMBER

          PREETINDER SINGH        MEMBER

 

PRESENT

:

Sh. Shivoy Dhir, Advocate for the Petitioner.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

 

This Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 21.02.2023 rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh (for brevity hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. Lower Commission”) in Consumer Complaint bearing No.CC/558/2022, whereby the Ld. Lower Commission struck off the right of the Petitioner (Opposite Party No.2) to file written version as it failed to file the same within the stipulated period of 45 days. The Petitioner has made following prayer: -

 

“Hence, therefore, it is respectfully prayed that the present revision petition be allowed and interim order qua present Petitioner dated 21.02.2023 be set-aside and last opportunity be granted to the Petitioner to file reply/written statement in the interest of justice.”

 

2.     The only issue in this Revision Petition relates to foreclosure of right of the Petitioner (Opposite Party No.2) to file written statement. The merits of this case, therefore, need not be discussed.
3.     Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and carefully gone through the record with utmost care and circumspection.  

 

4.     After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions raised and material on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the instant Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

 

5.     On the issue of filing of written statement, law is very categoric. Three Judges Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of “New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.” SLP (C) No.2833 of 2014 & SLP (C) Nos.11257-11258 of 2014 decided on 04.12.2015 had an occasion to interpret the scope of period of limitation for filing written statement, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: -

“17.  We are, therefore, of the view that the judgment delivered in the case of Dr.J.J.Merchant (supra) holds the field and therefore, we reiterate the view that the District Forum can grant a further period of 15 days to the opposite party for filing his version or reply and not beyond that.

18.  There is one more reason to follow the law laid down in the case of Dr.J.J.Merchant (supra).  Dr.J.J.Merchant (supra) was decided in 2002, whereas Kailash (supra) was decided in 2005.  As per law laid down by this Court, while deciding the case of Kailsh (supra),  this Court ought to have respected the view expressed in Dr.J.J.Merchant (supra) as the judgment delivered in the case of Dr.J.J.Merchant (supra) was earlier in point of time. The aforesaid legal position cannot be ignored by us and therefore, we are of the opinion that the view expressed in Dr.J.J.Merchant (supra) should be followed.”

6.     Hon’ble Supreme Court in “M/s Daddy’s Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Manisha Bhargava and Anr.” [Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 1240 of 2021] decided on 21.02.2021 observed as follows:-

“5.    In any case, in view of the earlier decision of this Court in the case of Dr.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.

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.”

 

7.     For the foregoing discussion and the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are of the view that the order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission is justified. The Petitioner failed to show any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference in the findings recorded ibid by the Ld. Lower Commission. The revision petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly, dismissed with no order as to cost.

   

8.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

 

9.     The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

20^th Mar.,2023

              Sd/-

                                  (PADMA PANDEY)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PREETINDER SINGH)

MEMBER

“Dutt”