Consumer Protection | Right To File Written Statement Couldn't Be Foreclosed If Complaint's Copy Wasn't Supplied To Opposite Party : Supreme Court

In a recent consumer case, the Supreme Court permitted the opposite party to file a written statement in the consumer complaint after the expiry of the statutory time limit because a copy of the complaint was not served to him.

It was a case where the appellant was denied the right to file a written statement in response to the consumer complaint. The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) foreclosed the appellant's right to file a written statement on the ground that it failed to file a written statement within the stipulated time limit as prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The appellant preferred an instant appeal before the Supreme Court challenging the NCDRC's order.

Before the Supreme Court, it was contended by the appellant that the right to file a written statement was wrongly foreclosed by the NCDRC. It added that since no copy of the complaint was furnished by the complainant's counsel to the appellant's counsel therefore it would not be possible to file a written statement.

Accepting the appellant's contention, the bench comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal set aside the NCDRC's order and observed that along with recording the acceptance of the notice by the defendant's counsel and the time granted to file a written statement, the order should also record that copy of the complaint has been supplied by the counsel for the complainants to the counsel for the opposite party.

Since the NCDRC's order didn't record a finding regarding the supply of the complaint's copy to the appellant, therefore the court permitted the appellant to file a written statement.

“Argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the copy of the complaint was not served upon him. The Commission had put onus on the appellant to have not made any attempt to get the copy of the complaint. However, the fact remains that the Commission has merely recorded in its order dated 06.02.2024 that the notice was accepted by the counsel for the appellant in Court and he was granted time to file the vakalatnama and written statement. The order does not record that copy of the complaint has been supplied by the counsel for the complainants to the counsel for the opposite party No.1/the appellant herein. Any such observation by the Commission in its order would have clinched the issue. It is not a case where along with the notice, copy of the complaint was accompanied. Therefore, it may be too harsh to foreclose anyone's right to file written statement merely on conjectures and surmises.”, the court said.

The court provided relief to the appellant/opposite party subject to the payment of the cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- each to every complaint.

“The appellant is permitted to file written statement subject to payment of costs of ₹1,00,000/- each to respondent Nos.1 to 31/complainants. The payment of costs shall be a condition precedent for acceptance of written statement on record. The costs, as above, shall be transferred in the respective bank accounts of the respondents. In case the details thereof are not available with the appellant, the same can be taken in coordination with the counsels representing them.”, the court ordered.

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pranjit Bhattacharya, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Niti, AOR Ms. Sonam Mhatre, Adv. Ms. Raj Sarit Khare, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Aditya Parolia, Adv. Mr. Piyush Singh, Adv. Mr. Akshay Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Alankrit Bhatnagar, Adv. Mr. Suryansh Vashisth, Adv. Mr. Anshul Gupta, AOR

Case Title: RICARDO CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. VERSUS RAVI KUCKIAN & OTHERS, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9958 OF 2024

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 744

Click here to read/download the order