Disposed

Mr. Subramani v. Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited (Bescom)

Karnataka HC3 Sept 2024WP/24831/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a State Consumer Commission order permitting BESCOM to file its version after the 45-day period expired. The High Court, following the Supreme Court's ruling in New India Assurance v Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage, set aside that order and directed expeditious disposal of the complaint.

What did the court decide?

State Commission's order dated 21.09.2023 set aside; District Commission directed to decide the complaint in accordance with law.

Mr. Subramani Vs Bangalore Electricity Supply Company… — Consumer Protection | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:35779-DB WP No. 24831 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.24831 OF 2023 (GM-CON)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MR. SUBRAMANI, S/O MR.RAMACHANDRA CHARI, PROPRIETOR OF NANDI PRINTS, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, NO.1031, 1^ST FLOOR, 25^TH MAIN, 40^TH CROSS, JAYANAGAR, 9^TH BLOCK, BANGALORE - 560 041

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. GANESH KUMAR R, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by K G RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED (BESCOM), HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT K.R CIRCLE, NRUPATHUNGA RAOD, BANGALORE - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER (Q&SS)/ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) …RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. H V DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.09.2023 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:35779-DB WP No. 24831 of 2023

¶19

KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE (ADDL BENCH) IN APPEAL NO.1508/2023 AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE BENGALURU III ADDL. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION TO DISPOSE OF THE COMPLAINT NO.103 OF 2022 IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, ETC.

¶20

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER DIRECTION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO AND

¶22

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO)

¶25

The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 21.09.2023 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru (Addl. Bench) (‘the Commission’ for short) in Appeal No.1508/2023 whereby the Commission has directed the following:

¶26

“ ORDER

¶27

The appeal is allowed on payment of cost of Rs.1,000/- payable before the District Commission to the complainant.

¶28

The Appellant/Opposite Party is directed to file version on the next date of hearing before the District Commission and the District Commission accept the version and proceed with the matter in accordance with law and dispose expeditiously.

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:35779-DB WP No. 24831 of 2023

¶30

Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Consumer Commission.”

¶31

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent having not filed the response/reply to the complaint within the statutory period of 30 + 15 = 45 days, the respondent has lost the right to file the same as envisaged under Section 38(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This position has also been held by the Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. -Vs.

¶32

Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. [2020 SCC

¶33

Online SC 287] , wherein in paragraph No.62, the Supreme Court has held as under:

¶34

“62. To conclude, we hold that our answer to the first question is that the District Forum has no power to extend the time for filing the response to the complaint beyond the period of 15 days in addition to 30 days as is envisaged under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act; and the answer to the second question is that the commencing point of limitation of 30 days under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act would be from the date of receipt of the notice accompanied with the complaint

¶35

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:35779-DB WP No. 24831 of 2023

¶36

by the opposite party, and not mere receipt of the notice of the complaint.”

¶37

Learned counsel would submit that though the Supreme Court was concerned with the provision existing under the old Act, the position has not changed even under the new Act, in terms of Section 38(3). He also states that there is no provision where the State Commission could have condoned the delay beyond 45 days and permitted the respondent herein to file a response/reply. He also submits that the respondent is not precluded from arguing the complaint to the extent that the petitioner herein is not entitled to the relief as sought for in his complaint.

¶38

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that as the issue of maintainability of the complaint on pecuniary jurisdiction was raised by the respondent before the District Commission, till such time that issue is decided, the respondent could not have filed the reply to the complaint.

¶39

We are unable to agree with the submission of learned counsel for the respondent in view of clear exposition

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:35779-DB WP No. 24831 of 2023

¶41

of law by the Supreme Court which we have reproduced above. Once the period of 45 days has expired, the respondent has lost the right to file response/reply. To that extent, the order of the State Commission needs to be set aside. It is ordered accordingly.

¶42

Suffice to state, the District Commission shall decide

¶43

the complaint filed by the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶44

With the above, the petition is disposed of .

¶45

Sd/(V KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE

¶46

Sd/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

¶47

PA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

Mr. Subramani v. Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited (Bescom)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Subramani v. Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited (Bescom)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Nanjundaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S. Pg Setty Construction Technology Pvt. Ltd., Vs the Managing Director

M/S Deemanth Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Karnataka Bank Ltd.

Centre Fore Development of Advanced Computing (Formerly National Centre for Software Technology) Vs Mrs. Ragini Bhartari

Smt. Dayavathi Vs the State of Karnataka

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs M/S Mangaluru City Corporation