Delve into the in-depth legal analysis of delay condonation in consumer protection cases. The court’s examination of statutory provisions and discretion in the application of the law provides valuable insights into the nuances of legal proceedings. Understanding the factors that govern delay condonation is essential in ensuring a fair and efficient judicial process.
Facts
- The NCDRC entertained IA 15390 of 2019, 15391 of 2019, and 18307 of 2019 in Consumer Complaint No. 2645 of 2018.
- A delay of 100 days in filing a written statement was condoned by the NCDRC.
- The judgment of a Constitution Bench dated 4 March 2020 in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited was delivered a few days before this order.
- The judgment clarified that the limitation period under Section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 could not be extended beyond forty-five days.
- The appellants filed a consumer complaint on 3 December 2018 related to two insurance policies and an alleged fire at their factory.
- The NCDRC permitted the appellants to file their reply to the respondent’s application for condoning the delay on 26 September 2019.
- The respondent filed its written statement on 23 September 2019 along with IA 15390 of 2019 for condonation of a 100-day delay.
- The appellant also filed IA 15391 of 2019 for the dismissal of the complaint.
- The NCDRC’s order dated 25 February 2020 condoned the delay on the condition that the respondent pays costs of Rs 50,000.
- On 6 December 2018, the NCDRC passed orders related to the case.
Also Read: Electoral Malpractices in Mayor Election
Arguments
- The appellant’s counsel argued that the delay in the case could not be condoned as per the stipulated time period in the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
- The provisions of Section 13 were applied to the proceedings before the NCDRC under Section 22.
- The respondent’s counsel contended that the decision in New India Assurance Company Limited had a prospective effect.
- During the pendency of the reference to the Constitution Bench, a two-judge bench decision allowed consumer fora to accept written statements filed beyond the stipulated time in certain cases.
- The NCDRC had used its discretion to condone the delay in this case, noting that the delay was due to the respondent filing a criminal case against the second surveyor.
Also Read: Balancing Power and Transparency: Electoral Bonds Struck Down, Disclosure Mandated
Analysis
- The outer limit of time for filing a written statement in Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 is binding as per Company Limited.
- Discretion for condonation of delay under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 is circumscribed by the statute.
- Legislative mandate of not granting more than forty-five days to submit the written statement requires adherence for a speedy trial per Dr J J Merchant v. Shrinath Chaturvedi.
- Consumer Protection Act 1986 and its successor are social welfare legislations designed to protect the interests of consumers.
- District Forum has no power to condone a delay beyond a discretionary period of fifteen days as per New India Assurance Company Limited.
- Daddy’s Builders case left to the concerned fora to accept written statements beyond the stipulated period of 45 days in an appropriate case.
- Conflict between positions in Dr A Suresh Kumar and Daddy’s Builders regarding the prospective effect of the Constitution Bench decision in New India Assurance Company Limited.
- Decision of the Constitution Bench in New India Assurance Company Limited not to condone delays beyond stipulated periods.
- Various judgments and observations regarding the condonation of delay in filing written statements during the pendency of the Constitution Bench reference.
- The guiding principle in interpreting the Consumer Protection Act 1986 is the welfare of litigating consumers who avail of goods and services.
- Recent considerations on the amended pecuniary jurisdiction of consumer fora on pending proceedings.
- Reliance General Insurance Company Limited issue referred to in various judgments as a point of consideration during the pendency of the Constitution Bench reference.
- The NCDRC had condoned a delay prior to the decision of the Constitution Bench on 4 March 2020.
- There was a conflicting decision in Daddy’s Builders regarding condonation of delays beyond the prescribed limit.
- The decision in Reliance General Insurance Company Limited allowed fora to accept written statements filed beyond the stipulated period in appropriate cases.
- The judgment in Daddy’s Builders was made prospective due to conflicting decisions in the field.
- Applications for condonation before 4 March 2020 would not be affected by the Daddy’s Builders decision.
- Bright-line standard principles were adopted to avoid legal uncertainty before consumer fora.
- Similar provisions for timely disposal exist in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 2015 and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016.
- The Constitution Bench decision clarified that it would operate prospectively.
- The decision in Daddy’s Builders was not necessary for its decision as no case for condonation was found on merits.
- The Constitution Bench gave prospective effect to its decision, not considering applications pending or decided before the date of the decision.
- Conflicting decisions led to a reference to the Constitution Bench for clarity.
- The judgment in the New India Assurance Company Limited case and the orders in the Reliance General Insurance Company Limited and Bhasin Infotech-2018 cases, recognized an element of discretion pending the reference.
- No interference is warranted in the order of the NCDRC allowing the application for condonation of delay on merits.
- The appellant’s inability to pay the costs of Rs. 50,000 due to lockdown is noted, and a demand draft is ready.
Also Read: Recall of Resolution Plan Approval: Legal Analysis
Decision
- Liberty granted to the appellants to file their replication within four weeks
- Appeal disposed off
- Pending applications disposed off
- Amount to be transmitted into NCDRC account within two weeks
Case Title: DIAMOND EXPORTS Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. (2021 INSC 883)
Case Number: C.A. No.-007546-007546 / 2021
