Chandigarh

StateCommission

RP/18/2023

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE/SIGNATORY - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUPERMARKET HARYANA A DEPARTMENT STORE THROUGH ITS PARTNER SH SURESH KUMAR BANSAL S/O SH BHAGWAN BAN - Opp.Party(s)

RAJ KUMAR BASHAMBOO ADV.

25 May 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH

[ADDITIONAL BENCH]

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

Revision Petition No.	:	RP/18/2023
Date  of  Institution	:	10/05/2023
Date   of   Decision	:	25/05/2023

 

 

 

 

 

[1]   United India Insurance Co. Ltd., having its Head Office at 24, Whites Road, Chennai, through its Authorized Representative/Signatory. 

 

[2]   United India Insurance Co. Ltd., having its Divisional Office IV, SCO 357-358, 1^st Floor, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, through its Divisional Manager.

 

     Both represented through Mr. Mohinder Dawer, Deputy Manager of United India Insurance Co. Limited, SCO No. 123-124, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh, duly constituted attorney.

 

…… Petitioners

 

V E R S U S

 

Supermarket Haryana, a Departmental Store, SCO No.89, Sector 46-C, Chandigarh, through its Partner Sh. Suresh Kumar Bansal S/o Sh. Bhagwan Bansal.  

 

…… Respondent

 

BEFORE:   MRS. PADMA PANDEY       PRESIDING MEMBER

          PREETINDER SINGH        MEMBER

 

PRESENT

:

Sh. Raj Kumar Bashamboo, Advocate for the Petitioners.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

 

This Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 28.03.2023 rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (for brevity hereinafter to be referred as the “Ld. Lower Commission”) in Consumer Complaint bearing No.CC/164/2022, whereby while allowing the application filed by the Complainant (Supermarket Haryana) for striking off the defence of the Opposite Parties (United India Insurance Co. Ltd.), the Ld. Lower Commission struck off the defence of the Petitioners and written statement/reply was ordered to be taken off the record as the same has not been filed within the stipulated period of 45 days as provided under the Act. The Petitioners have made following prayer: -

 

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the revision petition may kindly be allowed and the orders dated 28.03.2023 be set-aside and the case be heard on merits after giving proper opportunity to the Opposite Party/Petitioner”

 

2.     The only issue in this Revision Petition relates to striking off defence of the Petitioners and taking off the written statement/reply filed by them being not been filed within the stipulated period as provided under the Act. The merits of this case, therefore, need not be discussed.

 

3.     Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners and carefully gone through the record with utmost care and circumspection.  

 

4.     After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the 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.     Learned Counsel for the Petitioners argued, the order passed by the Ld.Lower Commission is illegal & irregular, in as much as, in the first instance, it allowed the filing of the written statement by the Petitioners and thereafter, without affording an opportunity to the Petitioners to file reply to the application of the Complainant (Supermarket Haryana) dated 23.09.2022, decided the same vide impugned order thereby disentitling the Petitioners to explain the reasons for the delay in filing the reply. However, we do not find any merit in this limb of argument advanced by Learned Counsel for the Petitioners. Record transpires, Petitioners duly filed their reply dated 12.01.2022 through their counsel Sh. Neeraj Raizada, Advocate, to the application moved by the Complainant for striking off the defence of the Opposite Parties. Thus, it cannot remotely be said that the impugned order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission is against the principles of natural justice, as due opportunity was granted to the Petitioners to explain the reasons for the delay in filing the reply. Moreover, the impugned order specifies that the Opposite Parties put in appearance through their counsel on 02.06.2022 and thereafter, Complaint was adjourned for awaiting the reply & evidence on 23.09.2022. However, written reply on behalf of the Opposite Parties was filed on 13.01.2023, which was apparently not filed within the prescribed statutory period of 45 days as mandated under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. In this backdrop, we are unable to accept the submissions advanced by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners.

 

6.     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.”

 

7.     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.”

 

8.     For the foregoing discussion and the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court, we are of the view that the order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission is justified. The Petitioners 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.

 

9.     The pending application(s), if any, stand disposed off accordingly.

 

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

 

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

Pronounced

25^th May, 2023

              /- Sd/-

                                  (PADMA PANDEY)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PREETINDER SINGH)

MEMBER

“Dutt”