Consumer Cases | Applications To Condone Delay In Filing Written Statements Filed Before 'New India Assurance 2' Decision Can't Be Summarily Rejected : Supreme Court
In a recent consumer case, the Supreme Court directed the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”) to decide the delay condonation application of the defendant for filing a written statement beyond the statutory period of a maximum 45 days i.e., after a delay of 285 days. Since the delay condonation application for filing the written submissions was preferred before...
In a recent consumer case, the Supreme Court directed the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”) to decide the delay condonation application of the defendant for filing a written statement beyond the statutory period of a maximum 45 days i.e., after a delay of 285 days.
Since the delay condonation application for filing the written submissions was preferred before the decision of the Constitution Bench in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (P) Ltd. (2020) (hereinafter “New India Assurance 2”) delivered on 04.03.2020, the Court held that such an application could not be summarily rejected and the consumer forum needed to decide the application on merit.
Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 states that the written statements ought to be filed within a maximum period of 45 days, however, due to divergent views regarding the position of whether the period prescribed under Section 13 is mandatory or directory, the matter was referred to a larger bench. The Constitution Bench in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2 categorically observed that the rigors of Section 13 of the Act needed to be complied with mandatorily and clarified that its decision would apply prospectively.
The bench comprising Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma observed that since the delay condonation application was filed much before the Constitution decision in New India Assurance 2, the defendant/appellant could not be denied the benefit to be heard on merit and their application could not be summarily rejected by the Consumer Forum.
Despite the Constitution bench dictum, another divergent view came from the division bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Daddy's Builders (P) Ltd. v. Manisha Bhargava (2021) where the court declined to allow the defendant to file a written submission beyond the statutory period of 45 days even when the delay condonation application came up for consideration before the ruling of New India Assurance 2.
Nonetheless, the three-judge bench in Diamond Exports v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2022) held that Daddy's Builders (P) Ltd. would not affect applications seeking condonation of delay that were pending or decided on or before 04.03.2020, and accordingly, such application(s) seeking condonation of delay would be entitled to the benefit granted by this Court in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mampee Timbers & Hardwares (P) Ltd. (2021) pursuant to the decision rendered in New India Assurance 2.
“In the considered opinion of this Court, the categorical observation(s) of the Constitution Bench in New India Assurance 2 (Supra); coupled with the finding(s) of a Bench of 3 Judges of this Court in Diamond Exports (Supra) have authoritatively brought quietus to the underlying issue. The application(s) seeking condonation of delay preferred before the consumer fora prior to 04.03.2020 i.e., the date of pronouncement of New India Assurance 2 (Supra), must be decided on merits; and ought not to be summarily dismissed.”, the judgment authored by Justice Satish Chandra Sharma said.
Accordingly, the Impugned Order was set aside; and the NCDRC was directed to adjudicate the underlying application seeking condonation of delay in filing the WS in the Underlying Complaint on merits.
The appeal was accordingly allowed.
Case Title: DR. VIJAY DIXIT & ORS. VERSUS PAGADAL KRISHNA MOHAN & ORS., CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 1970 OF 2020
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 625