HON’BLE MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY, MEMBER

This Revision u/s 17(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed by the OP No. 1 challenging the Order No. 10 dated 19.08.2016 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Burdwan, during pendency of Complaint Case No. 17 of 2016, rejecting the prayer by the Revisionist/OP No. 1 for vacating ex parte order No. 9 dated 28.07.2016 passed by the said Ld. District Forum and acceptance of written version filed after expiry of 45 days.

The Ld. Advocate for the Revisionist/OP No. 1 submits that the Ld. District Forum accepted the written version by the OP No. 2 after expiry of 45 days as evident from the Order No. 9 dated 28.07.2016, but the same prayer by the Revisionist/OP No. 1 was not allowed by the Ld. District Forum, which clearly indicates discrimination between the Ops placed under equal circumstances, which is contrary to the settled principle of justice delivery procedure.

The Ld. Advocate further submits that acceptance of written version even after expiry of 45 days is permissible in accordance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. M/s. Mampee Timbers and Hardwares Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., decided on 10.02.2017 in Civil Appeal No. 2365 of 2017 wherein it was held, “We consider it appropriate to direct that pending decision of the larger Bench it is 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 cost, and to proceed with the matter”.   Apart from the above decision, the Ld. Advocate has referred to another decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in Dr. Phani Bhusan Mondal Vs. Dr. Tripti Das & Anr, reported in 2017 (3) CPR 310 (NC), wherein it was held that time-limit for filing written statement can be extended subject to payment of cost.

The Ld. Advocate finally submits that in view of the aforesaid submission and the cited decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and National Commission, the order impugned should be set aside and the Ld. District Forum be directed to accept the written version by the OP No. 1 having due regard to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and National Commission.

None appears on behalf of the Respondents.  Consequently, the instant Revision Case is being disposed of on the basis of evidence and the decision of the Apex Court available on records.

It is true that there is no legal provision under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in respect of recalling by the Ld. District Forum of its own order.  At the same time, discrimination between the Ops in accepting written version beyond 45 days, as in the case on hand, is not permissible as per settled judicial procedure.

This apart, the above referred decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and National Commission indicate that the written version filed beyond the stipulated time of 45 days can be accepted in appropriate cases on suitable terms including the payment of cost.

Besides, it is also settled by the Hon’ble National Commission in a decision dated 19.01.2017 in M/s. Cloud 9 Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gourav Khanna in F.A. No. 374 of 2016, that despite ex parte order, in the interest of justice, Opposite Party is to be given opportunity to be present before the Fora to defend his case.

The foregoing discussions and the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and National Commission lead us to conclude that the impugned order deserves to be set aside and accordingly, the impugned order is set aside.  The Revision Petition is allowed.  The Ld. District Forum is directed to consider afresh the prayer in question of the OP No. 1 in view of the above-referred decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and National Commission.

All the parties are directed to appear before the Ld. District Forum concerned on 19.12.2017.