Bombay High Court
The Senior Superintendent Of Post ... vs Shital Ashok Nimbalkar on 2 August, 2024
2024:BHC-AUG:16549
1 wp 7710.2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 7710 OF 2024
The Senior Superintendent Of Post Offices, Aurangabad
Division, Aurangabad And Another
VERSUS
Shital Ashok Nimbalkar, r/o Cidco, N-2, Aurangabad.
...
D.S.G.I. for Petitioners : Mr. A.G.Talhar
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
Dated : 02nd August, 2024
PER COURT :-
1. Petitioners impugns the order dated 9.5.2024
passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Aurangabad in complaint case
no.CC/357/2023 as well as the order dated 2.7.2024
passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Mumbai, Bench at Aurangabad in
Revision No.38 of 2024.
2. The Respondent/original complainant filed
consumer complaint No.357 of 2023 before the District
Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission at Aurangabad
contending that she booked a Speed Post Article on
16.3.2023 from the Post Office at Sessions Court Premises,
Aurangabad vide article no. EM401078268IN. Said article
was delivered to the respondent on 17.3.2023 instead of
delivering to recipients/Addressee. Respondent No.1 being
2 wp 7710.2024.odt
enraged by deficiency in service by the postal authority,
issued legal notice. It was replied by the petitioners on
24.4.2023. However, unsatisfied with the reply, respondent
filed consumer complaint. The notice of said complaint was
served upon the petitioners on 7.12.2023. On 13.2.2024
Petitioners caused appearance before the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, Aurangabad and obtained
copy of the complaint. On 3.4.2024 Advocate for the
petitioners filed Vakalatnama. After noting appearance,
matter was posted to 9.5.2024 for reply/written statement
of the petitioners. However, on 9.5.2024 District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, Aurangabad passed the
impugned order i.e. "No say order" and posted the
complaint for arguments on 3.7.2024. Petitioners filed
revision petition against "No say order" before Maharashtra
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai,
Bench at Aurangabad. However, revision petition came to
be dismissed vide order dated 2.7.2024.
3. Mr. Talhar, learned D.S.G.I. appearing for the
petitioners submit that the petitioners were not served with
copy of the complaint alongwith notice of the proceeding.
On 3.4.2024 appearance was caused on behalf of the
petitioners. Roznama depicts that matter was posted on
9.5.2024. On that day, petitioners submitted an application
seeking permission to tender written statement. However,
said application came to be rejected as written statement
was not filed within the stipulated time. Mr. Talhar, relying
3 wp 7710.2024.odt
upon the judgment of the Supreme court of India in case of
Diamond Exports & Anr. Vs. United India Insurance
Company Limited (Civil Appeal No.7546 of 2021) submits
that written statement could have been accepted by
condoning the delay on payment of costs. Mr. Talhar urges
to adopt the same course in the present matter and permit
written statement on record by awarding costs to the
Respondent.
4. It is trite that consumer Protection Act, 1986 is
a Complete Code and provides mechanism to deal with
grievances of consumers so also prescribes procedure and
remedies in the matters of the Consumer Disputes. The
provisions are designed so as to provide hastlefree and
expeditious justice to the consumers, who are required to
fight out against the deficiencies in service at the hands of
service providers. Early disposal of the complaint is
ensured through a summary and time bound procedure.
Timeline is prescribed for the steps to be taken by the
parties during course of the proceeding of the complaint.
Section 38 of the Consumer Protection Act prescribes for
specific time limit for filing the written statement after
service of notice of the complainant. Section 38 (2) (a) of
the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 prescribes the period of
30 days for filing of the reply, which can be extended by
further 15 days. The Supreme Court of India in case of
Diamond Exports and Anr. (supra) held that the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has no discretion to
4 wp 7710.2024.odt
grant extension of time for filing reply beyond 15 days after
initial period of 30 days. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum as well as the Maharashtra State
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai Bench
at Aurangabad has followed the aforesaid principles of law
and rejected prayer of the petitioners for extension of time
to file the written statement.
5. Although, Mr. Talhar, learned D.S.G.I. attempts
to contend that service of notice dated 7.12.2023 was
without copy of the complaint, it is not disputed that copy
of the complaint was obtained by Petitioner from office of
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
Aurangabad on 13.2.2024 through an advocate when he
filed vakalatnama before the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission. Even from that day i.e. 13.2.2024
period of more than 45 days had lapsed till 9.5.2024 when
written statement was tendered into service. The District
Commission is not empowered to brake water tight
compartment of time limit and permit filing time barred
written statement. Consequently, no fault can be found in
the impugned order. Resultantly, Writ Petition stands
dismissed. No costs.
( S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR )
JUDGE
...
aaa-
