The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a critical analysis of the commencing point of the limitation of 30 days stipulated in Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

ORDER :

These matters arise out of a consumer dispute in Consumer Complaint No. 52 of 2013 on the file of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

2. Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter being referred to as 'the Act') provides for the constitution of fora (hereinafter called 'ADJUDICATORY BODIES') at three levels, District, State and National, to settle consumer disputes(1).

(1) Consumer dispute is a defined expression under Section 2(e) of the Act "consumer dispute" means a dispute where the person against whom a complaint has been made, denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint."

3. Section 21 of the Act confers the National Commission with both original and appellate jurisdictions.

4. In the instant batch of cases, we are concerned with the original jurisdiction of the National Commission. The National Commission has original jurisdiction to examine complaints arising under Act where the complaint pertains to goods and services the value and compensation, if any claimed, exceeds Rs. One crore.

5. Section 12 and 13 prescribe the procedure to be followed by a District Consumer Forum where it receives a 'complaint(2)'. The subject matter of a complaint could be regarding the supply of defective goods or deficiency in the service rendered. By virtue of the declaration contained under Section 22, the procedure prescribed under Section 12 and 13 is required to be followed even by the National Commission while adjudicating disputes in exercise of its original jurisdiction.

(2) Defined expression under Section 2(e).

6. Admittedly, the complaint in all these appeals is regarding the deficiency in the service rendered by the appellants.

7. Under Section 13(2) of the Act, any ADJUDICATORY BODY "on the admission of the complaint" where the complaint pertaining to deficiency in service is required to put the opposite party on notice by supplying a copy of the complaint and call upon the opposite party "to give his version of the case" within a period of 30 days or such extended period not exceeding 15 days as may be granted by the adjudicatory body.

8. Section 13(2) insofar as it is relevant for the present purpose is as follows:-

"The District Forum shall, …………… or if the complaint relates to any services -

(a) refer a copy of such complaint to the opposite party directing him to give his version of the case within a period of thirty days or such extended period not exceeding fifteen days as may be granted by the District Forum."

9. It can be seen that sub-clause 2(a) of Section 13 is not explicit regarding the commencing point of the period of 30 days.

10. On the other hand, clause (b) of sub-Section (2) of Section 13 stipulates that where the opposite party denies or disputes any allegations in the complaint or fails to take any action to represent his case subsequent to receipt of the copy of the complaint within the time given by the adjudicatory body, the adjudicatory body is mandated to proceed with the examination of the dispute. The relevant portion of clause (b) of sub-Section (2) reads as follows:-

"(b) where the opposite party, on receipt of a copy of the complaint, referred to him under clause(a) denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint, or omits or fails to take any action to represent his case within the time given by the District Forum, the District Forum shall proceed to settle the consumer dispute -

11. On a conjoint reading of clause (a) and (b) of sub-Section (2) of Section 13, it appears to us that the period of limitation of 30 days stipulated by the statute within which time the opposite party to a consumer dispute is to state his version of the case does not depend upon any statutorily determined point from which the period of limitation starts running. The period of limitation can vary with each case depending upon the decision of the ADJUDICATORY BODY to indicate the point on which the period of limitation starts running.

12. In the case on hand, the Na