caselaws.org
Supreme Court of India
M/S Daddys Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs Manisha Bhargava on 11 February, 2021Author: M.R. Shah
Bench: Hon’Ble Dr. Chandrachud, M.R. Shah
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
EXTRA-ORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 1240 of 2021
M/s Daddy’s Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Another …Petitioners
Versus
Manisha Bhargava and Another …Respondents
ORDER
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated
04.09.2020 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘National Commission’) in First
Appeal No. 1999/2018, by which the National Commission has dismissed the
said appeal confirming the order passed by the Karnataka State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State
Commission’) dated 26.09.2018 rejecting the application filed by the petitioners
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Sanjay Kumar
Date: 2021.02.11
16:44:25 IST
Reason:
herein seeking condonation of delay in filing the written version/written
1
statement to the consumer complaint, original respondent nos. 1 & 2-petitioners
herein have preferred the present special leave petition.
2. By order dated 26.09.2018, the State Commission rejected the application
filed by the petitioners herein seeking condonation of delay in filing the written
statement/written version to the consumer complaint. It is not in dispute that
the written version/written statement was filed beyond the prescribed period of
limitation provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘Act’), i.e., beyond the period of 45 days. It is not in dispute
that as per the provisions of the Act, the written version/written statement is
required to be filed within 30 days and the same can be extended by a further
period of 15 days. The order passed by the State Commission came to be
confirmed by the National Commission. Hence, the present special leave
petition.
3. Shri Ashish Choudhary, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the
petitioners has vehemently submitted that it is true that as per the decision of the
Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of New India Assurance company
Limited v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited, reported in (2020)
5 SCC 757, the District Forum has no power to extend the time to file the
response to the complaint beyond the period of 15 days in addition to 30 days as
is envisaged under Section 13 of the Act. It is submitted that however as
observed in paragraph 63, the said judgment shall be applicable prospectively
2
only. Therefore, it is the case on behalf of the petitioners that the aforesaid
decision shall not be applicable retrospectively, and more particularly to the
complaints filed before the said decision. It is submitted that in the present case
the application for condition of delay came up for consideration before the State
Commission on 26.09.2018 and on that date there was a judgment of this Court
in the case of Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M/s Mampee Timbers &
Hardwares Pvt. Ltd. (Diary No. 2365 of 2017 decided on 10.02.2017) directing
the consumer fora to accept the written statement beyond the stipulated time of
45 days in an appropriate case, on suitable terms, including the payment of costs
and to proceed with the matter, keeping in view the fact that the judgment of
this Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited v. Hilli
Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited, reported in (2015) 16 SCC 20 has
been referred to a larger Bench. Therefore, it is the case on behalf of the
petitioners that the State Commission ought to have condoned the delay in filing
the written statement/written version to the consumer complaint.
4. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and
so far as the question whether the date on which the State Commission passed
the order, then on that date, whether the State Commission has the power to
condone the delay beyond 45 days for filing the written statement under Section
13 of the Act is concerned, as such, the said issue whether the State
Commission has the power to condone the delay beyond 45 days is now not res
3
integra in view of the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of
New India Assurance Company Limited v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt.
Ltd. reported in (2020) 5 SCC 757. However, it is submitted by the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that as in paragraph 63 it is
observed that the said judgment shall be applicable prospectively and therefore
the said decision shall not be applicable to the complaint which was filed prior
to the said judgment and/or the said decision shall not be applicable to the
application for condonation of delay filed before the said decision.
However, the aforesaid cannot be accepted. It is required to be noted that
as per the decision of this Court in the case of J.J. Merchant v. Shrinath
Chaturvedi, reported in (2002) 6 SCC 635, which was a three Judge Bench
decision, consumer fora has no power to extend the time for filing a
reply/written statement beyond the period prescribed under the Act. However,
thereafter, despite the above three Judge Bench decision, a contrary view was
taken by a two Judge Bench and therefore the matter was referred to the five
Judge Bench and the Constitution Bench has reiterated the view taken in the
case of J.J.Merchant (supra) and has again reiterated that the consumer fora
has no power and/or jurisdiction to accept the written statement beyond the
statutory period prescribed under the Act, i.e., 45 days in all. However, it was
found that in view of the order passed by this Court in Reliance General
Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) dated 10.02.2017, pending the decision of the larger
4
Bench, in some of the cases, the State Commission might have condoned the
delay in filing the written statement filed beyond the stipulated time of 45 days
and all those orders condoning the delay and accepting the written statements
shall not be affected, this Court observed in paragraph 63 that the decision of
the Constitution Bench shall be applicable prospectively. We say so because
one of us was a party to the said decision of the Constitution Bench.
5. Now so far as the reliance placed upon the order passed by this Court
dated 10.02.2017 in the case of Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) is
concerned, the same has been dealt with in detail by the National Commission
by the impugned order while deciding the first appeal. As rightly observed by
the National Commission, there was no mandate that in all the cases where the
written statement was submitted beyond the stipulated period of 45 days, the
delay must be condoned and the written statement must be taken on record. In
order dated 10.02.2017, it is specifically mentioned that it will be open to the
concerned fora to accept the written statement filed beyond the stipulated period
of 45 days in an appropriate case, on suitable terms, including the payment of
costs and to proceed with the matter. Therefore, ultimately, it was left to the
concerned fora to accept the written statement beyond the stipulated period of
45 days in an appropriate case. As observed by the National Commission that
despite sufficient time granted the written statement was not filed within the
prescribed period of limitation. Therefore, the National Commission has
5
considered the aspect of condonation of delay on merits also. In any case, in
view of the earlier decision of this Court in the case of J.J. Merchant (supra)
and the subsequent authoritative decision of the Constitution Bench of this
Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited v. Hilli
Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (2020) 5 SCC 757, consumer fora has no
jurisdiction and/or power to accept the written statement beyond the period of
45 days, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the
learned National Commission.
6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the present
special leave petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
…………………………………J. [Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud]
New Delhi; ………………………………….J.
February 11, 2021. [M.R. Shah]
6
Comments