AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. S. M. Kantikar, J
The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act') against the impugned order dated 27-06-2017 passed in RP/235/2016 by West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (for short, "State Commission"), whereby the revision petition was dismissed and the order passed in complaint No. 263 of 2014 by Kolkata District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short, 'the District Forum') was affirmed.
The facts in a nutshell are that the complainant alongwith her husband booked a flat in the OP- Company. In the month of November, 2007, the co- alottee was changed with Sri Swaranavo Kumar Roy, the son of the complainant. Thereafter, an apartment was allotted to the complainant. Several requests made by the complainant to rectify the imperfections in the flat, to obtain the Completion Certificate and for providing "covered car parking Space" were never heeded to by the OP. So, being aggrieved by the conduct of the OP, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum.
During the proceedings before the District Forum, vide order dated 25-6-2015, the OP was proceeded ex-parte. Thereafter, OP filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte order, but the District Forum, vide order dated 3-10-2016 fixed the date for hearing the arguments. Being aggrieved by the said order, the OP filed a revision petition before the State Commission.
The State Commission made its observation that during proceedings before the District Forum, the OP was given several opportunities to file its written version viz. 11.07.2014, 08.09.2014, 24.11.2014, 25.02.2015 and 17.04.2015. Despite giving these opportunities, the OP failed to file the written version. The State Commission dismissed the revision petition vide Order dated 27.06.2017 with cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid to the complainant. The State Commission relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of New India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Hilly Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. AIR 2016 SC 86 in which the right to file written version was forfeited because there was delay in filing the written version as stated under the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act. The State Commission also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & Ors. v. Achyut Kashinath Karekar & Anr. VII (2011) SLT 404 wherein it was held that the State Commission or the District Forum had no power to review its own order.
Being aggrieved, the OP has filed the instant revision petition. We have heard the counsel for the petitioner and the husband of the Respondent /complainant. Also, carefully perused the entire record. It is pertinent to note that the complaint was filed before the District Forum in 2014. Till 18.05.2016, the OP did not take any steps to file its written version despite several opportunities granted by the District Forum. On 03.10.2016, the District Forum fixed the matter for arguments on 02.01.2017. Thereafter, the OP approached the State Commission through revision petition. It was dismissed on 27.06.2017. Afterwards the petitioner/OP approached this Commission through the instant revision petition.
We are rather surprised by the lackadaisical attitude of the OP towards the consumer forum. It should be borne in mind that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a beneficial legislation, which aims at speedy disposal of cases. Under the provisions of Section 13 (2) (a) of the Act, a time period of 30 days was granted to the OP for filing its written version. This period could be extended by 15 days subject to filing of application by the OP. The extension of further time in the routine will take away the essence and the spirit of the Act.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent judgment of Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. vs. M/s Mampee Timbers and Hardwares Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., (Civil Appeal No. NIL of 2017- D.No. 2365 of 2017 ) decided on 10.02.2017, held that till the question of extension of time limit for filing of written version beyond 45 days as stipulated in Sec. 13 of the Act, is decided by the larger bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the uncertainty could be addressed by the concerned Consumer Forum by accepting the written version, which was filed with a delay. But, such a written version should be accepted only if the case is appropriate and on suitable terms with imposing cost to the defaulting party. The relevant part of the judgment is as follows:
"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."
In the instant case, we cannot ignore the conduct and approach of the petitioner/OP. This matter is hanging fire since 2014 due to negligent and careless attitude of the OP. In our view, one final opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner/OP to file its Written Version for further adjudication. The OP is permitted to file its written version within four weeks from today, subject to a cost of Rs. 1 lakh to be paid to the respondent / complainant, also within four weeks from today. The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum for further proceedings on 04.02.2019.
We may clarify that in the Order dated 30.07.2018, in line 1 of para 2, the word "dismissed" is a clerical mistake. It should read as "disposed". We had disposed of the revision petition with one final opportunity to file written version subject to cost of Rs. 1 lakh.
PER MR. DINESH SINGH, MEMBER
A short point is involved in this revision.
Despite five opportunities being provided (on 11.07.2014, 08.09.2014, 24.11.2014, 25.02.2015 and 17.04.2015), the revisionist - opposite party did not file its written version in the District Forum. The District Forum (then) proceeded ex parte against it (order dated 25.06.2015), and the case was listed for hearing of arguments (order dated 03.09.2016). The opposite party, at that stage, filed revision in the State Commission under section 17(1)(b) of the Act 1986. The State Commission dismissed the revision with cost of Rs.5,000/- (order dated 27.06.2017). The opposite party, then, filed revision in this Commission under section 21(b) of the Act.
The Act 1986 is for better protection of the interests of consumers, to provide speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes. The statutory time period stipulated in section 13(2) for filing written version has a purpose to it. The opposite party, however, showed callous disregard to the statutory period, and created unwarranted impediments and delay in speedy and holistic adjudication of the dispute on merit.
So as to get the dispute comprehensively and holistically examined and adjudicated on merit, we are allowing one last and final opportunity to the opposite party to file its written version within four weeks from the date of pronouncement of this Order. This opportunity is subject to suitable terms and cost. In the facts and specificities of the case (as succinctly summed-up afore), we feel it just, appropriate and necessary that a cost of Rs. 1 lakh be paid by the opposite party to the complainant simultaneous to or prior to its written version being taken on record. (As already mentioned in para 9 above, the word "dismissed" in line 1 of para 2 of the daily Order of 30.07.2018 is a typographical error. The revision is disposed of as afore.)
We also make it explicit that the cost of Rs.5,000/- imposed by the State Commission vide its Order dated 27.06.2017 stands as it stood.
The Revision Petition is disposed of with the directions as contained in paras 8 and 10 above.
The Registry is directed to send a copy each of this Order to the revisionist - opposite party, respondent - complainant and the District Forum within seven days.