Consumer Protection Act: Limitation for Written Statement Commences Upon Receipt of Complaint Copy, Not Mere Notice: Supreme Court - 2025-05-14

Supreme Court: Clock for Filing Defence in Consumer Cases Starts Only After Complaint Copy is Served

New Delhi: The Supreme Court recently set aside an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) that had foreclosed a company's right to file its written statement, emphasizing that the limitation period for filing such a statement commences only upon the receipt of the notice accompanied by the complaint copy , and not merely from the date of accepting notice. The Court, in an order delivered by Justice Rajesh Bindal , granted the appellant an opportunity to file its defence, albeit with significant costs.

Background of the Dispute

The appeal before the Supreme Court challenged the NCDRC's order dated July 19, 2024, in Consumer Complaint No. 5 of 2024. In that order, the NCDRC had closed the appellant's right to file a written statement.

The issue originated on February 6, 2024, when the appellant's counsel, present in the NCDRC after seeing the matter in the cause list, accepted notice for the appellant (Opposite Party No. 1 in the complaint). The NCDRC granted 30 days to file the written statement. However, the appellant failed to do so within the stipulated time, leading to the foreclosure of its right on July 19, 2024. The NCDRC then gave the complainants six weeks to file evidence and listed the matter for January 9, 2025.

Arguments Before the Supreme Court

Appellant's Contentions: The appellant argued that the time provided by law was not effectively granted because a copy of the complaint was never supplied to its counsel. The counsel had appeared proactively and accepted notice on February 6, 2024, without a formal vakalatnama at that point, to expedite proceedings. It was contended that formal service of notice, accompanied by the complaint, was not effected by the court's process. Without the complaint copy, filing a written statement was impossible. The appellant relied on the Constitution Bench judgment in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited, (2020) 5 SCC 757 . They further submitted that there was no intention to delay, and allowing the written statement would not disrupt the NCDRC's timeline significantly, as the next hearing was scheduled for January 2025.

Respondents' (Complainants') Counter-Arguments: The complainants (Respondent Nos. 1 to 31) argued that, as per the New India Assurance case, a maximum of 45 days (30 days + 15 days condonable delay) can be granted to file a written statement. They asserted that more than 45 days had passed since the appellant's counsel accepted notice. They contended it was the appellant's duty to obtain the complaint copy if not supplied and that the appellant was merely trying to delay the proceedings.

Supreme Court's Reasoning and Observations

The Supreme Court meticulously examined the record and arguments. Justice Rajesh Bindal , delivering the order, noted several key points:

Proactive Counsel, Not Delay Tactic: The Court observed that the appellant's counsel accepting notice on the very first day (February 6, 2024), even without a vakalatnama initially, did not indicate an intention to delay but rather an effort to expedite.

Non-Supply of Complaint Copy: Crucially, the NCDRC's order of February 6, 2024, while recording the acceptance of notice and grant of time, did not record that a copy of the complaint had been supplied to the appellant's counsel. The Supreme Court stated, "Any such observation by the Commission in its order would have clinched the issue."

Commencement of Limitation Period: The Court heavily relied on its Constitution Bench decision in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited . It reiterated the principle laid down: > "the commencing point of limitation of 30 days under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act would be from the date of receipt of the notice accompanied with the complaint by the opposite party, and not mere receipt of the notice of the complaint.” The Court also noted that the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, are aligned with the 1986 Act on this aspect.

Harshness of Foreclosure: The Supreme Court found the NCDRC's foreclosure of the right to file a written statement to be unduly harsh under the circumstances. The Court remarked: > "Therefore, it may be too harsh to foreclose anyone’s right to file written statement merely on conjectures and surmises."

The Court reasoned that since the complaint copy was not demonstrably served upon the appellant or its counsel, the timeline for filing the written statement had not effectively commenced as per law.

The Decision: Appeal Allowed with Costs

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the NCDRC's order dated July 19, 2024, insofar as it foreclosed the appellant's right to file the written statement.

The Court permitted the appellant to file its written statement on or before October 14, 2024. However, this relief was made subject to the payment of costs of ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) each to the 31 complainants (respondent Nos. 1 to 31), totaling ₹31,00,000/-. The payment of these costs was made a condition precedent for the acceptance of the written statement.

The complainants were granted liberty to file a replication, if any, by November 6, 2024, and their affidavit of evidence by December 9, 2024. The matter will remain fixed before the NCDRC on January 9, 2025, for the purpose already designated.

Implications of the Judgment

This Supreme Court order underscores the critical importance of procedural fairness in consumer dispute resolution. It reaffirms that the statutory period for filing a defence cannot be triggered by mere notice if the foundational document – the complaint itself – has not been provided to the defending party. While emphasizing timely justice, the ruling ensures that parties are not deprived of their right to defend based on procedural ambiguities, particularly concerning the service of essential pleadings. The imposition of substantial costs also serves as a reminder for diligence while balancing the scales of justice.