Zilla Parishad Chandrapur Thr. ... vs Bhushan Wasudeorao Moon
2016 Latest Caselaw 3042 Bom

                                                                                 
                                                     1                         wp.2211.16.jud




                                                         
              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR




                                                        
                               WRIT PETITION NO.2211 OF 2016

     Petitioner                :      Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur,
                                      through its Chief Executive Officer,




                                             
                                      Chandrapur.
                              ig      -- Versus --

     Respondent                :      Bhushan Wasudeorao Moon,
                                      Aged about 60 years, 
                            
                                      R/o Flat No.208, Honey Archana Complex, 
                                      B-Wing, Untkhana, Dahipura, Nagpur.

                     =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
      

                       Shri N.W. Almelkar, Advocate for the petitioner
                     Shri Sankalp Meshram, Advocate for the respondent
   



                     =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

                                C ORAM :  Z.A. HAQ, J.

                               DATE     :  20
                                                 JUNE, 2016.
                                              th





     ORAL JUDGMENT :-  





     01]              Heard Shri N.W. Almelkar, learned Advocate for the petitioner

and Shri Sankalp Meshram, learned Advocate for the respondent.

02] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

03] The petitioner (opposite party before the Consumer Forum)

filed its reply/written statement after the period of 45 days. The Forum

2 wp.2211.16.jud

refused to take on record the version/written statement of the petitioner on

record. The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Consumer

Forum before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in

revision which is dismissed by the impugned order.

04] The Commission has relied on the judgment given by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. J.J. Merchant and others vs.

Shrinath Chaturvedi reported in (2002) 6 SCC 635 and the judgment

given in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Hilli Multipurpose

Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. reported in AIR 2016 SC 86 and has concluded that

in view of Section 13(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, the

version/written statement of opposite party cannot be taken on record after

45 days.

05] The learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the

version/written statement was filed on 86th day, the other side

(complainant) gave its reply in the matter after seven days and then the

Forum passed an order refusing to take the version/written statement on

record after about seven months. It is submitted that in these facts, it

cannot be said that prejudice would have been caused to the original

complainant, if the version/written statement of the petitioner would have

been taken on record.

                                               3                            wp.2211.16.jud




                                                      
     06]              In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

above referred judgments, the conclusions of the Commission cannot be

faulted with.

The petition is dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties to

bear their own costs.

JUDGE

*sdw