PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER

          This first appeal has been filed under section 19 read with section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 02.02.2016, passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in consumer complaint No. CC/468/2014, vide which, the written statement filed by the petitioner/OP was ordered to be “not taken on record”, on the ground that the statutory time as prescribed under the Act to file the written version had already expired and the State Commission was not competent to extend the time in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.” [Civil Appeal No. 10941 – 10942 of 2013 passed on 04.12.2015].  It was also observed that the petitioner/OP was directed on 10.08.2015 to file the written version within eight weeks, but he failed to do so. 

2.       The main ground taken in the appeal by the appellant/OP says that the complainant/respondent had booked an apartment/flat bearing No. A4203 in their housing project named, “Araville” at Sector 79, Gurgaon, Haryana.  However, they failed to make payments to them as per the payment plan agreed between the parties, despite sending a number of letters to them.  The allotment in their favour was, therefore, cancelled vide letter dated 28.10.2014.  The appellant had telephonically requested the complainant to approach them for documentation work, so that the refund of the amount deposited as per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter could be made to them.  However, the complainant chose to file the consumer complaint in question.  It has been stated in the memo of appeal that the matter was listed before the State Commission on 27.10.2014, when they decided to issue notice to the appellant.  The appellant entered appearance through counsel before the State Commission on 12.05.2015.  Based on the joint request of the parties, the State Commission referred the matter to mediation and the next date for hearing before the State Commission was fixed as 10.08.2015.  It has been admitted by the appellant that on 10.08.2015, their counsel appeared before the State Commission and apprised that the matter could not be settled in mediation proceedings.  The State Commission granted time of eight weeks to the appellant to file the written version.  The said written version was, however, filed on 2.02.2016, when the State Commission declined to take it on record.  The appellant stated that the impugned order was against the principles of natural justice.  The order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.” [supra], was not applicable to the cases already pending before 04.12.2015.

3.       On examination of the material made available on record, the facts are more or less admitted by the parties that the case was first heard by the State Commission on 27.10.2014, when the complaint was formally admitted and notice was issued to the appellant/OP for filing the written version and the case was fixed for hearing on 12.05.2015.  On that date, on the joint request of the parties, the matter was referred for mediation.  On the next date of hearing, i.e., on 10.08.2015, the State Commission observed that the matter could not be settled during mediation.  The appellant/OP was asked to fie written version within eight weeks with an advance copy to the complainant. 

4.       However, it is an admitted fact that the appellant did not file written version, even within the time prescribed by the State Commission.  In the grounds of appeal as well, the appellant has not been able to state any reasons as to why they failed to adhere to the time schedule laid down by the State Commission.  At the present juncture, keeping in view the order dated 04.12.2015 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.” [supra],” it is not possible to extend the time beyond 30/45 days as prescribed under section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The order passed by the State Commission, therefore, does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional error of any kind. 

5.       It may further be observed that the present appeal has been filed with a delay of 246 days.  In the application for condonation of delay, no reason has been given to explain the delay in filing the appeal.  It has only been stated that the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 04.12.2015 “New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. [supra]” has been referred to a larger bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal bearing No. 1083 – 1084 / 2016 titled as, “M/s. Bhasin Infotech and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs M/s. Grand Venezia Buyers Association (Regd.)” and the appellant was awaiting the outcome of the said case.  This explanation given by the appellant is not convincing because at the moment, the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 04.12.2015 in “New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.” [supra],” holds ground.

6.         Based on the discussion above, it is held that there is no merit in this appeal and the same is ordered to be dismissed.  There shall be no order as to costs.