CB Judgment Which Held Delay Beyond 45 Days In Filing Written Statement Before NCDRC Can't Be Condoned Applies Only Prospectively: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court reiterated that the Constitution Bench judgment in New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited [(2020) 5 SCC 757, which held that the delay beyond the period of 30+15 day (45 days) in filing the written statement cannot be condoned by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission operates only prospectively.

In this case, the application for condonation of delay was filed prior to the judgment of the Constitution Bench [ 04.03.2020] with a delay of 7 days beyond the period of 30+15 days (45 days). NCDRC rejected the application for condonation of delay in filing the written statement citing the Constitution Bench judgment. Against this dismissal, the party filed appeal before Apex Court.

"In our view, since the application for condonation of delay was filed prior to the judgment of the Constitution Bench, which was delivered on 04.03.2020, the said application for condonation of delay ought to have been considered on merits and should not have been dismissed on the basis of the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited (supra) because the said judgment was to operate prospectively and the written statement as well as the application for condonation of delay had been filed much prior to the said judgment.", the bench comprising Justice Vineet Saran and Dinesh Maheshwari observed.

Setting aside the NCDRC order, the bench condoned the delay of 7 days on payment of cost of Rs.25,000/- . If the payment is made, the written statement shall be accepted by the NCDRC and every effort shall be made by the NCDRC to decide the complaint filed by the respondent as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months, the court added.

In Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited, the Constitution Bench held that Consumer Protection Act 1986 did not empower the Consumer Forum to extend the time beyond the period of 45 days. The time period prescribed under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act is mandatory, and not directory, the court had held. It also observed that the timeline will start from the time that notice along with complaint is received and not just notice

Case: Dr. A Suresh Kumar vs. Amit Agarwal

Coram: Justices Vineet Saran and Dinesh Maheshwari

Citation: LL 2021 SC 290

Click here to Read/Download Order