AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Presiding Member
None appears for the respondent despite service.
Heard counsel for the Petitioner. The only point for consideration in the present case is whether the rejection of the written version of the Petitioner herein ( OP before the District Forum) was correct or not. District Forum has rejected the request of written version on the ground that it was filed beyond the permissible limit of 30+15 days as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage ( P) Ltd. (2020) 5 SCC 757. No extension beyond 45 days can be granted. In this case, notice was issued by the District Forum on 11.11.2022, the OP claims to have received on 06.12.2022 and written version was filed on 14.03.2023. OP / Petitioner herein contends that said notice was not accompanied with copy of the complaint / relevant document and it was stated in the said notice that such documents be received from the Commission. OP contends that he received the documents on 15.02.2023, hence written version filed by them on 14.03.3023 is within 30 days and District Commission went wrong in rejecting the same and State Commission also went wrong in disallowing their appeal. On 30.09.2023, after hearing the counsel for the petitioner, three weeks time was granted to produce sufficient evidence to establish that they received the complaint copy / other relevant documents on 15.02.2023 only. In compliance of the said order, petitioner has filed copies of relevant documents including original certified copy of the complaint which bears the seal of the District Commission and shows a marginal endorsement of counsel of OP before the District Commission that he received complaint and documents on 15.02.2023. List of documents received by him on 15.02.2023 have also been enclosed with the said complaint and this also bears the original seal of the District Commission.
Counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the notice dated 11.11.2022 which bears a footnote that OP should receive all case related documents from the Consumer Commission. Ideally, District Commission should have sent copy of Complaint and all documents to the OP alongwith notice itself rather than putting the onus on the OP to receive such documents from the Commission. Hence, the OP having adduced fresh evidence to show that he received such documents from the District Commission on 15.02.2023, keeping in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage ( P) Ltd., in which Hon’ble Supreme Court held that period of 30 days is to be counted not merely from the date of notice but notice accompanying with copy of the complaint, the OP deserves to get benefit of counting his limitation period of 30 + 15 days for filing written version from 15.02.2023. Counsel for the petitioner states that his case is still pending for adjudication before the District Commission. In view of the above, we hereby set aside the order of the State Commission dated 18.05.2023 under which Appeal of the Petitioner was disallowed and order of District Commission dated 15.03.2023 under which written version of OP was rejected and hereby direct the District Commission to take on record the written version, which has already been filed by the OP on 14.03.3023 and decide the case on merits as per law after taking note of the written version of the OP.
Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly.