NCDRC Upholds The Sacrosanct Nature Of Procedural Timeline Of 45 Days For Filing Written Statement
Aakanksha Bajoria
17 Dec 2024 3:55 AM
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh has underscored the importance of procedural timeline given under the Consumer Protection Act for filing of written statement. The bench observed that the initial timeline of 30 days with extension of another 15 days must be adhered to in all respects. It held that a litigant cannot be allowed even a single day beyond the 45th day for filing the written statement.
Brief background:
Authorised representatives of builders Lucina Land Development ltd. and Diana infrastructure ltd. failed to file their written reply to a complaint within the 45 days timeline as prescribed under the Act. Thereafter, the builders submitted false affidavits before the commission misrepresenting the date of receipt of complaint so as to make their case fall within the limitation period. In response, the complainants filed applications for prosecution of the builders' representatives for perjury and filing false evidence.
The builders took the argument of administrative errors. It was stated that there existed no wilful intention on their part to mislead the commission and it happened only due to the laxity on part of the lower level officials. Accordingly, an apology was tendered.
Observations:
The bench accepted the unconditional apology tendered by the builders and issued them a warning to remain diligent in future proceedings. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. ltd. vs Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (2020) 5 SCC 757. In this judgment, the Apex Court highlighted the sacrosanct nature of the procedural timeline of initial 30 days extendable up to further 15 days. Thus, it was held that once the 45 days timeline expires, not even a single day can be granted for filing of Written Reply. Hence, the applications were disposed of and the consumer complaints will proceed on merits.
Case name: Suman Kumar Mishra & Ors. vs Lucina Land Development ltd. & Anr.
Case number: Consumer Case No. 95 of 2024
Date of decision: 29.11.2024
Counsel for the complainant : Mr. Anshul Gupta and Mr. Rishabh Darira, Advocates
Counsel for the opp. Party : Mr. Pranav Sarthi And Mr. Gaurav Vats, Advocates