Haryana

StateCommission

CM/47/2016

MakeMyTrip (India) Private Limited - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vikash Kumar Chaturvedi - Opp.Party(s)

06 Oct 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                   Misc. Application No.47 of 2016 

    Revision Petition No. 08 of 2016

                                                  Date of Institution:     18.01.2016

                                                  Date of Decision:       06.10.2016

  

MakeMyTrip (India) Private Limited, having its corporate office at UG-7, TDI Mall, Shivaji Palace Complex, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi – 110027 and Corporate Office at Tower –A, SP Infocity, Plot No.243, Udyog Vihar, Phase 01, Gurgaon-122 016.

Applicant-Petitioner

Versus

 

Vikash Kumar Chaturvedi, Q. No.2/E, Startchy Road, Railway Colony, Liluah, Howrah, West Bengal – 711204.

Respondent-Complainant

 

CORAM:             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Shri Naveen Sharma, Advocate for applicant.  

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          MakeMyTrip (India) Private Limited-Petitioner/Opposite Party, has filed Civil Miscellaneous No.47 of 2016 for extension of time in filing written version.

2.                Vikash Kumar Chaturvedi-complainant/respondent, filed complaint against opposite party-petitioner, alleging deficiency in service. A perusal of the record shows that the complaint was filed on 21^st May, 2015. After putting in appearance and despite sufficient opportunities being allowed, the opposite party did not file written version. Consequently, defence of opposite party-petitioner was struck off by the District Forum vide order dated 28^th September, 2015.

3.                The opposite party-petitioner preferred Revision Petition No.08 of 2016 against the said order which was allowed by this Commission vide order dated 1^st February, 2016. The petitioner was afforded opportunity to file written version before the District Forum on 7^th April, 2016.

4.                The petitioner still not filing written version, filed application on 8^th April, 2016 to file written version, however same was dismissed by the District Forum.

5.                It can be taken note that on 28^th September, 2015 when the defence of the petitioner-opposite party was struck off, the opposite party-petitioner had availed sufficient time to file written version but it failed. Even thereafter till the disposal of revision, there were five months with the petitioner to prepare and file written version. The revision petition was allowed on 01.02.2016. Perusal of the record shows that the copy of order was supplied to the petitioner on the same day. There was still more than two months time with the petitioner to file written version. However, nothing was done. The manner in which the petitioner is conducting the proceedings shows that petitioner’s intention is only to delay and cause harassment to the complainant. If the adjournments are granted in routine, the very purpose of the Consumer Protection Act would frustrate. No explanation been given for further extension of the time for filing written version.  Therefore, the application is dismissed.

6.                In Dr. J.J. Merchant & Ors. v. Shrinath Chaturvedi, [(2002) 6 SCC 635,  Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-

“13.   The National Commission or the State Commission is empowered to follow the said procedure. From the aforesaid section it is apparent that on receipt of the complaint, the opposite party is required to be given notice directing him to give his version of the case within a period of 30 days or such extended period not exceeding 15 days as may be granted by the District Forum or the Commission. For having speedy trail, this legislative mandate of not giving more than 45 days in submitting the written statement or the version of the case is required to be adhered to. If this is not adhered to, the legislative mandate of disposing of the cases within three or five months would be defeated.

14.    For this purpose, even Parliament has amended Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which reads thus:

“1. Written statement. – The defendant shall, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him, present a written statement of his defence:

Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the same on such other day, as may be specified by the court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, but which shall not be later than ninety days from the date of service of summons.”

15.    Under this Rule also, there is a legislative mandate that written statement of defence is to be filed within 30 days. However, if there is a failure to file such written statement within the stipulated time, the court can at the most extend further period of 60 days and no more. Under the Act, the legislative intent is not to give 90 days of time but only maximum 45 days for filing the version of the opposite party. Therefore, the aforesaid mandate is required to be strictly adhered to.”

 

7.                In view of the above, the petitioner is not entitled for any further time to file written version. Hence, the application is dismissed.

Announced: 06.10.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

CL