AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anup K Thakur, Presiding Member
Counsel for the appellant has submitted his case in this appeal as below:
(i) Order dated 04.05.2018 of the State Commission in CC No.274/2018 reads as below:
"Heard the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant. Perused the complaint petition and other relevant documents. Considered. Let the complaint be admitted and registered. Issue notice upon the O.Ps by Speed Post with A/D fixing 20.08.2018 for S/R and appearance."
(ii) He makes a legal submission qua this order of the State Commission quoting Section-13(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which reads as below:
"13. (a) refer a copy of the admitted complaint, within twenty-one days from the date of its admission to the opposite party mentioned in the complaint directing him to give his version of the case within a period of thirty days or such extended period not exceeding fifteen days as may be granted by the District Forum."
On the basis of above, he argues that there was no direction in the order dated 04.05.2018 to the OP to file written statement; it had only directed appearance.
(iii) His further argument was that after the State Commission, vide order dated 04.10.2018, had closed the right of OP-1 to file written version and directed that case would proceed ex-parte against OP-1, it had again, vide order dated 16.01.2019, reaffirmed that the case would proceed ex-parte against OP-1.This amounted to the State Commission reviewing its own order which it could not have done.
(iv) Counsel further submitted that there is an arbitration proceeding also going on, and that before this, there was a history of another proceeding in the same case.This indicates that this is a complicated case involving complex facts and legal issues. Since this is so, it would only become even more complex if the right to file the written version is denied to OP-1.
(v) On the aspect of giving permission for filing written version with delay, the counsel drew attention to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No....... of 2017 (D.No.2365/2017) in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. M/s. Mampee Timbers and Hardwares Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., relevant portion of which is as below:
"We consider it appropriate to direct that pending decision of the larger bench, it will be 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 costs, and to proceed with the matter."
It is also seen that this appeal has been filed with I.A. No.4429/2019, an application seeking condonation of delay of 46 days according to the appellant and 130 days according to the Registry.
In view of the inordinate delay in filing this appeal, it is clear that the OP is only interested in somehow delaying this matter on one pretext or another and is using or rather mis-using the process of law. Consumer Protection Act is meant to provide speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes, an objective that would stand severely compromised if the instant appeal was to be allowed. In any case, nothing prevents the Appellant from participating in the on-going proceedings before the State Commission. It is also clear that the legal submissions made by the counsel only stand testimony to the proposition that the only purpose is to delay the proceedings.
In view of the discussion above, this First Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission.