IMPORTANT POINT
The Consumer Fora can grant time to the opposite party to file his reply beyond a total period of 45 days as Section 13(2)(a) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is procedural and directory in nature. But such an exercise should be done rarely and judicially.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Section 13(2)(a)-Time limit of 45 days to file reply to opposite party-Complaint regarding deficiency in service on the part of respondent in advancing the loan to the appellant despite of furnishing security for the same-Notice served on 22-2-2000-4-4-2000 was fixed for reply by respondent-Respondent appeared on 4-4-2000 and got case adjourned to 4-5-2000-On the adjourned date back, filed the reply-Complainant then filed rejoinder-Complainant later moved application for return of reply and rejoinder as it exceeded period of 45 days as per Section 13(2)(a)-Rejected by State Commission-Confirmed in revision by National Commission-Appeal to Supreme Court-Whether or not State Commission could grant time to the respondent to file his reply beyond a total period of 45 days, in review of Section 13(2)(a) of the Act? (Yes) (Because provision is procedural and directory in nature) (General Clauses Act, 1897-Section 14)-Case law referred-Appeal dismissed.
       Held : A reading of clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 13 no doubt makes it clear that the District Forum would give time of 30 days to the opposite party for the purposes of giving his version. An extension of time for filing reply could be granted but not exceeding 15 days. Thus the total period during which the reply can be filed is 45 days after extension of fifteen days is granted. The question which however arises is as to whether the provision prescribing limit for filing reply is mandatory or directory in nature. (Para 7)
       Thus the intention to provide a time frame to file reply, is really meant to expedite the hearing of such matters and to avoid unnecessary adjournments to linger on the proceedings on the pretext of filing reply. The provision however, as framed, does not indicate that it is mandatory in nature. In case the extended time exceeds 15 days, no penal consequences are prescribed therefor. The period of extension of time "not exceeding 15 days," does not prescribe any kind of period of limitation. The provision appears to be directory in nature, which the consumer forums are ordinarily supposed to apply, in the proceedings before them. We do not find force in the submission made by the appellant, in person, that in no event, whatsoever, the reply of the respondent could be taken on record beyond the period of 45 days. (Para 9)
       Therefore, it could not be said that any substantive right accrued in favour of the appellant or there was any kind of bar of limitation in filing of the reply within extended time though beyond 45 days in all. The reply is not necessarily to be rejected. All facts and circumstances of the case must be taken into account. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act also provides that principles of natural justice have also to be kept in mind. (Para 13)
       [But] It does not mean that orders extending the time to file reply may be passed repeatedly unmindful of and totally ignoring the provision that the extension may not exceed 15 days. This provision has always to be kept in mind while passing an order extending the time to file a reply to the petition. It is another matter, as we have found that in case time is extended exceeding 15 days, it may not be kind of an illegality which may deny or deprive the respondent to file his reply within the time granted by the Forum/Commission. So far the facts of the present case are concerned, we find that at the first instance the Commission itself had fixed the date beyond 30 days and the respondent sought further time which prayer was accepted and 4.5.2000 was fixed. The respondent filed his reply on the date fixed. In such circumstances there was no occasion to contend that the reply of the respondent should be rejected. For the discussion held above, we find no merit in the appeal. The same is dismissed with costs. (Paras 14, 15 & 16)

JUDGMENT

Brijesh Kumar, J.-Leave granted. Heard appellant in person and the learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The appeal has been preferred against the order dated April 9, 2001 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissing the revision filed by the appellant. The short point in controversy is, as to whether or not the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, could grant time to the respondent to file his reply, beyond a total period of 45 days, in view of Section 13 (2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (for short the Act).

3. The appellant filed a complaint before the Gujarat State Consumer Redressal Commission, claiming compensation against the respondent, on account of alleged failure on the part of the respondent in advancing the loan to the appellant despite of furnishing the security for the same. The respondent received notice, issued by the Commission, on 22.2.2000. According to the said notice 4.4.2000 was the date fixed before the State Commission. The respondent appeared on 4.4.2000 and moved an application for adjournment of the case and grant of time to file reply. The case was adjourned for 4.5.2000. On the said date, namely, 4.5.2000, the respondent-Bank filed its reply. The appellant thereafter seems to have filed their rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondent. On the next date, namely, 24.7.2000 the appellant moved an application before the State Commission saying that the reply filed by the respondent was beyond a period of 30 days initially admissible for filing reply and also beyond a further period of 15 days as could be extended for the purpose. Hence, it was prayed that the reply of the respondent may not be accepted on record and the rejoinder filed by the appellant may also be returned to it. According to the appellant, a total period of time for filing of reply could not exceed beyond 45 days, as per Section 13(2)(a) of the Act. The application was, however, rejected by the State Commission but a cost of Rs. 500/- was imposed upon the respondent for late filing of the reply.

4. While refusing, the prayer to reject the reply, the Commission observed that the delay did not appear to be gross or contrary to the order passed granting adjournment on 4.4.2000. The Commission further observed that the discretion vested to extend time for 15 days could be exercised from time to time as the occasion may require and for arriving at this conclusion, the State Commission has relied upon decisions of this Court reported in National Sewing Thread Co., Chidambaram versus James Chadwick & Bros. Ltd. AIR 1953 SC 357 and Vasanlal Maganbhai Sanjanwala versus The State of Bombay AIR 1061 SC 4 as well as on Section 14 of the General Clauses Act. It has also been observed that these are matters of procedure which are hand-made of justice. The revision preferred against the said order before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was dismissed as it was considered that no ground was made out to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdictions.

5. Shri H.M.G. Murthy who appeared in person for the appellant, submitted that the State Commission had no power to accept a reply filed beyond a total period of 45 days. Initially the respondent is required to submit the reply within 30 days which period could be extended not exceeding 15 days as would be evident from the plain and bare reading of Section 13(2)(a) of the Act. It is also submitted that the discretion vested in the Forum/ Commission to extend the time cannot be exercised from time to time as held by the State Commission since that would frustrate the purpose of the provision itself. The case of the Respondent is that the provision fixing a period for submission of reply, is only procedural in nature, and it cannot be interpreted in a manner so as to deprive a party of being heard on merits of his case. It is also submitted, on facts, that the notice was received on 22.2.2000 and the appellant was req

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 654

IMPORTANT POINTThe Consumer Fora can grant time to the opposite party to file his reply beyond a total period of 45 days as Section 13(2)(a) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is procedural and directory in nature. But such an exercise should be done rarely and judicially.

Cases Referred (7)

IMPORTANT POINT
The Consumer Fora can grant time to the opposite party to file his reply beyond a total period of 45 days as Section 13(2)(a) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is procedural and directory in nature. But such an exercise should be done rarely and judicially.