The recent legal case delves into the nuanced interpretation of time limits under the Consumer Protection Act. The Court’s analysis focuses on the prospective application of rules regarding the acceptance of written statements beyond the stipulated period. This blog provides insights into the court’s legal analysis and its implications for future consumer dispute resolutions. Dive into the complexities of the judgment and its impact on consumer protection laws.
Facts
- The Coordinate Bench, in an order dated 10 February 2017, directed that pending the decision of the larger Bench, consumer fora can accept written statements filed beyond the 45-day stipulated period in appropriate cases.
- A Coordinate Bench in another case had also examined the same issue.
- The matter was adjourned till 21 May 2020, and the petitioners filed a further appeal before the Court.
- The appellants sought time to reply to the complaint filed by the respondents on 15 March 2018 alleging deficiency in service.
- The delay in filing the reply to the complaint exceeded the 45-day period prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
- On 23 December 2019, the appellants filed a reply to the complaint along with an application for condonation of an 18-day delay.
- This issue was previously referred to by a two-Judge Bench of the Court in a Civil Appeal involving the same appellants.
Also Read: Clarifying Legal Requirements for Approval in Disciplinary Proceedings
Issue
- District Forum does not have the power to extend the time for filing a response to a complaint beyond the period of 15 days in addition to the initial 30 days as per Section 13(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act.
- The commencing point of limitation of 30 days under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act is from the date of receipt of the notice accompanied with the complaint by the opposite party, and not just the receipt of the notice of the complaint.
- The judgment operates prospectively and was based on a Constitution Bench decision.
Also Read: Judicial Review in Disciplinary Proceedings
Arguments
- Appellants relied on the observation in the last paragraph of the Constitution Bench judgment stating it would be applied prospectively.
- Reference was made to the order of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Reliance General Insurance Company Limited for support.
- Coordinate Bench in the case of Daddy’s Builders Private Limited rejected the argument that the Constitution Bench ratio would not apply to complaints filed before the judgment date of March 4, 2020.
- Appellants in that case interpreted prospective operation to mean that the Constitution Bench’s view against condonation of delay in filing reply beyond 45 days should not apply to complaints filed before March 4, 2020.
- Learned counsel for the petitioners argue that the judgment mentioned is applicable prospectively.
- They claim that the said decision should not apply to complaints filed before the judgment.
- They also argue that the decision should not apply to applications for condonation of delay filed before the judgment.
Also Read: Legal Analysis in Company Law Case
Analysis
- The Constitution Bench reiterated that consumer fora have no power or jurisdiction to accept written statements beyond the statutory period of 45 days.
- The matter was referred to a five-judge Bench, which upheld the view taken in J.J. Merchant case.
- Consumer fora may accept written statements beyond 45 days in exceptional cases.
- National Commission considered condonation of delay on merits, but found many cases where delay was not justified.
- State Commissions may have condoned delays based on an order of the larger Bench, but these decisions will not be affected.
- The National Commission’s detailed order discussed the reliance on the 2017 order in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
- The timeframe for filing written submissions is the same for all three fora under the 1986 Act, as per Section 18.
- The Constitution Bench’s decision is to be applied prospectively.
- In the case of J.J. Merchant v. Shrinath Chaturvedi, it was held that consumer fora cannot extend the time for filing a reply/written statement beyond the period prescribed by the law.
- In the case of Daddy’s Builders Private Limited, it was recognized that the State Commission does not have the power to condone the delay beyond 45 days for filing a written statement under Section 13 of the Act, as per the Constitution Bench decision in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.
Decision
- Written statements can be accepted beyond the stipulated 45 days period in appropriate cases.
- Acceptance may be subject to suitable terms, which could include the payment of costs.
- The Fora concerned have the discretion to proceed with the matter even if the written statement is filed late.
Case Title: BHASIN INFOTECH AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. NEEMA AGARWAL (2021 INSC 830)
Case Number: C.A. No.-000073-000074 / 2021
