w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Amravati Housing & Area Development Board Amravati Through it's Estate Manager, Maharashtra v/s Satish Annaji Neware


Company & Directors' Information:- V G P HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65922TN1972PTC006240

Company & Directors' Information:- A R K ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400DL2008PTC173098

Company & Directors' Information:- A V N ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2005PTC134084

Company & Directors' Information:- N S T HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70109WB2001PTC093885

Company & Directors' Information:- G C HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2003PTC122011

Company & Directors' Information:- J B C ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45101UP1988PTC010112

Company & Directors' Information:- M. P. HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200UP2007PTC033329

Company & Directors' Information:- V. D. P. HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70102UP2012PTC054142

Company & Directors' Information:- J R ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201DL1994PTC058595

Company & Directors' Information:- G P ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201GJ1987PTC009746

Company & Directors' Information:- K-HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200TN2009PTC070655

Company & Directors' Information:- N. K. N. ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400WB2011PTC171474

Company & Directors' Information:- G L P ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101DL2006PTC148523

    Revision Petition No. RBT/RP/20/1 In CC. No. 162 of 2019

    Decided On, 29 July 2021

    At, Maharshtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Nagpur

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. A.Z. KHWAJA
    By, PRESIDING MEMBER

    For the Petitioner: S.N. Kadu, Advocate. For the Respondent: Agnihotri, Advocate.



Judgment Text

1. Petitioner Amravati Housing and Area Development Board Amravati has preferred the present Revision Petition (Old Misc.Application) feeling aggrieved by the order Dt.20/01/2021 passed by the learned District Consumer Commission Amravati in Consumer Complaint No.19/162 by which the application filed by the present petitioner/O.P. for permission to file written statement came to be rejected.

2. Briefly stated, it is the case of present petitioner that the complainant/respondent Satish Annaji Neware had filed the Consumer complaint before the learned District Consumer Commission Amravati. Petitioner has contended that he received the notice of the Consumer complaint on 01/08/2019. After receiving the copy, petitioner/O.P. appeared through advocate on 13/09/2019 and sought time for filing written statement. But no time was granted and application of the petitioner came to be rejected. Petitioner has contended that thereafter the learned District Consumer Commission proceeded to pass no W.S. order against the present petitioner on 20/09/2019. Petitioner thereafter filed an application for setting aside the order Dt.20/09/2019 and for permission to file the written statement and for condoning delay on the ground that his daughter was suffering from illness and same was diagnosed as Jaundice, but this application was not considered and the learned District Consumer Commission Amravati proceeded to reject the application. Against this impugned order Dt.20/01/2021 passed by the learned District Consumer Commission Amravati, petitioner has come up in the present revision.

3. I have heard S.N. Kadu, learned advocate for the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner/O.P. that he received the summons of the consumer complaint filed by the respondent Satish Neware on 01/08/2019 and thereafter the matter was fixed on 26/08/2019. Petitioner thereafter appeared in the matter on 13/09/2019 and sought time for filing written statement, but that application was rejected. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner could not filed the written statement within the stipulated period due to personal difficulty of the counsel as his daughter was suffering from illness and was diagnosed to be suffering from Jaundice. But the learned District Consumer Commission Amravati did not take this fact in to consideration and proceeded to pass no W.S. order on 20/09/2019. Petitioner thereafter preferred the present application for setting aside no W.S. order on 20/11/2019, but this application also came to be rejected on Dt.20/01/2021. It is submitted by Shri S.M.Kadu, learned advocate for the petitioner that the learned District Consumer Commission Amravati had not taken in to consideration the genuine difficulties of the petitioner in not filing written statement within stipulated period.

4. I have also heard Shri Agnihotri, learned advocate for the respondent/complainant and he has strongly opposed the said application and has contended that the present Revision Petition as well as the application for setting aside no W.S. order is not only untenable in law but also malafide in nature. According to Shri Agnihotri, learned advocate for respondent, the O.P./petitioners were under bounden duty to file the written statement within a period of 45 days from receipt of summons and the said condition was mandatory in nature. In this aspect Shri Agnihotri, learned advocate for the respondent has also heavily relied upon judgment in the case of New India Assurance Co.Ltd……..V/s…….Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt.Ltd., decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appellate Jurisdiction, Civil Appeal No.10941-10942 of 2013. But before going to the authority cited by the learned advocate for both the parties, it is necessary to deal with the facts which are very clear. Petitioner has himself admitted that he received the summons of the consumer complaint on 01/08/2019. It was therefore necessary for the petitioner to file the written statement as per Section 13 of Consumer Protection Act within a period of 45 days which ended on 20/09/2019. It is clear that the petitioner did not file written statement but sought time to file the written statement, but his application also came to be rejected and thereafter no W.S. order came to be passed on 20/09/2019. Petitioner thereafter filed an application for setting aside no W.S. order on 20/11/2019. It is necessary to point out that the Consumer Protection Act 1986 does not provide for filing of such application for setting aside no W.S. order. In any case the said application was filed on 20/11/2019 after almost 60 days. If we go through the impugned order Dt.20/01/2021 learned District Consumer Commission Amravati has dealt with this aspect elaborately.

5. Coming now to the legal aspect, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in land mark judgment in the case of New India Assurance Co.Ltd……..V/s…….Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt.Ltd., in Civil Appellate Jurisdiction, Civil Appeal No.10941-10942 of 2013. has dealt with these aspects in an elaborate manner. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has after discussing various aspects and the question of limitation under Consumer Protection Act 1986 has concluded in para 40 and 41 that the District Consumer Forum has no power to extend the time for filing the response in the complaint beyond the period of 15 days in addition to 30 days as is envisaged under 13 of Consumer Protection Act 1986. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also concluded that the commencing point of limitation of 30 days under section 13 of Consumer Protection Act would be from the date of receipt of the notice accompanied with complaint by the O.P.

6. In the present case before us the facts speak for them selves and show that the petitioner failed to file the written statement within the total period of 45 days and thereafter filed an application for setting aside no W.S. order. Admittedly, learned District Consumer Commission had no power or authority to extend the period of 45 days and so rightly rejected the application by passing the impugned order Dt.20/01/2021 and therefore the findings given by the learned District Consumer Commission Amravati can not be termed as perverse or erroneous. I have also gone through copy of one judgment in the case of Tata Motors Finance Ltd…….V/s…….Shivnarayan Mittal S/o Late Purushottam Das Mirttal passed by

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

State Consumer Commission, Circuit Bench Nagpur in Revision Petition No.15/2018 on which reliance placed by Shri S.M.Kadu, learned advocate for the petitioner. But the same is not applicable in view of aforesaid judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court. 7. In the light of aforesaid discussions, I am unable to accept the contentions advanced by the learned advocate of the petitioner that the learned District Consumer Commission Amravati has committed any error in passing the impugned order Dt.20/01/2021. As such revision petition is not tenable in law and so I proceed to pass the following order. ORDER Revision petition No.RBT/RP/20/1 is hereby rejected. No order as to costs.
O R