Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2020 Supreme(SC) 234

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARUN MISHRA, INDIRA BANERJEE, VINEET SARAN, M. R. SHAH, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD0 – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
HILLI MULTIPURPOSE COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD. – RESPONDENT(S)
Civil Appeal No. 10941-10942 of 2013 with Civil Appeal No. 8343 of 2014, Civil Appeal No. 1083-1084 of 2016, Civil Appeal No. 1085-1086 of 2016, Civil Appeal No. 4473 of 2016, Civil Appeal No. 6095 of 2016, Civil Appeal No. 5485 of 2016, Civil Appeal No. 1964 of 2020, [Arising Out of SLP(C) No. 20748 of 2016], Civil Appeal No. 10127 of 2016, Civil Appeal No. 10129 of 2016, Civil Appeal No. 1968 of 2020, [Arising Out of SLP(C) No. 29264 of 2016], Civil Appeal No. 1969 of 2020, [Arising Out of SLP(C) No. 31190 of 2016] Civil Appeal No. 1970 of 2020, [Arising Out of SLP(C) No. 36048 of 2016], Civil Appeal No. 10333 of 2016, Civil Appeal No. 1971 of 2020, [Arising Out of SLP(C) No. 1300 of 2017], Civil Appeal No. 10858 of 2016, Civil Appeal No. 1972 of 2020, [Arising Out of SLP(C) No. 35551 of 2016], Civil Appeal No. 1973 of 2020, [Arising Out of SLP(C) No. 34843 of 2016], Civil Appeal No. 1974 of 2020, [Arising Out of SLP(C) No. 21388 of 2017], Civil Appeal No. 1975 of 2020, [Arising Out of SLP(C) No. 13951 of 2017], Civil Appeal No. 1976 of 2020, [Arising Out of SLP(C) No. 10796 of 2017], Civil Appeal No. 780 of 2017, Civil Appeal No. 4457 of 2017, Civil Appeal No. 1977 of 2020, [Arising Out of SLP(C) No. 151 of 2017], Civil Appeal No. 1978 of 2020,[Arising Out of SLP(C) No. 13567 of 2017], Civil Appeal No. 1979 of 2020, [Arising Out of SLP(C) No. 3128 of 2017], Civil Appeal No. 1965 of 2020 [Arising Out of SLP(C) No. 25849 of 2016], Civil Appeal No. 2339 of 2017, Civil Appeal No. 4510 of 2017, Civil Appeal No. 1980 of 2020, [Arising Out of SLP(C) No. 7225 of 2017], Civil Appeal No. 1981 of 2020, [Arising Out of SLP(C) No. 8435 of 2017], Civil Appeal No. 5219 of 2017, Civil Appeal No. 1982 of 2020, [Arising Out of SLP(C) No. 14346 of 2017], Civil Appeal No. 5574-5575 of 2017, Civil Appeal No. 1983 of 2020, [Arising Out of SLP(C) No. 10544 of 2017], Civil Appeal No. 7100 of 2017, Civil Appeal No. 5578-5579 of 2017, Civil Appeal No. 1984 of 2020, [Arising Out of SLP(C) No. 13962 of 2017]Civil Appeal No. 10226 of 2017, Civil Appeal No. 12456 of 2017, Civil Appeal No. 1985-86 of 2020, [Arising Out of SLP(C) No. 36314-36315 of 2017]
Decided on : 04-03-2020

Advocates Appeared:
for the Appearing Parties :Jayant Sud, Priya Puri, Yati Sharma, Ranjay Dubey, Srishti Sharma, Arvind Kumar Shukla, Reetu Sharma, Nihal Ahmad, Kunal Yadav, Neena Shukla, Kshana Kumari, Alok Shukla, Robin R. David, Febin V. Mathew, Dhiraj A. Philip, Munawwar Naseem, Amit Shukla, Neha Shukla, Deva Shukla, Kumudini Shukla, Vivek Salathia, Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, Mukesh Kumar Singh, Shantanu Jugtawat, Ikshit Singhal, Venkateshwar Rao Anumolu, B. Paramesh, Deepak Kumar Singh, Trideep Pais, N. K. Verma, Anjana Chandrashekhar, Badri Prasad Singh, Neha Chaudhary, Sunit K. Khattri, Nalini Singh, K. Maruthi Rao, K. Radha, Anjani Auyagari, Uday Gupta, Shivani M. Lal, Hiren Dasan, Sarla Chandra, M.K. Tripathi, Chand Qureshi, Hemant Kushwaha, Ashish Gupta, Narayan Chandra Das, Harish Dasan, Bhavin r. Bhatia, Arpit Rai, Sanjeev R. Singh, Amogh Singh, Aviral Kashyap, Dr. Harish Uppal, Tileshwar Prasad, Rahul Gupta, O. P. Gaggar, Aditya Gaggar, Sachindra Karn, Hemant Gupta, Tushar Sharma, Alok Sharma, Sunakshi Gupta, Priyank Jain, Jinendra Jain, P. P. Malhotra, Vineet Malhotra, Mohit Paul, Sunaina Phul, Arvind Gupta, Sandeep Kumar Singh, Anil Kumar Sahu, Piyush Sharma, Prakash Gautam, Sujeet Kumar, Sunil Kumar Pandey, Shekhar Raj Sharma, Sanjeev Sagar, Jinendra Jain, Sudeep Kumar, Samual David, Munawwar Naseem, Manju Jetley, Kapil Joshi, Vibhuti Seth, Balaji Srinivasan, Garima Jain, Pallavi Sengupta, Aishwarya Choudhary, Anini Debbarman, Lakshmi Rao, Vishnu Mehra, Manjeet Chawla, Mahaling Pandarge, Abhijit Sengupta, Vishal Gehrana, Anmol Jassal, For M/s. Karanjawala & Co. M. T. George, Susy Abraham, Johns George, P. S. Sudheer, Rishi Maheshwari, Anne Mathew, Shruti Jose, Balaji Srinivasan, Alok Kumar, Somya Yadava, Snigdha Singh, Ketul Hanshraj, Lav Kumar Agrawal, Usha Garg, Shashikant Mehrotra, Vaibhav Saini, Kundan Kumar Lal, Shivam Singh, Harpreet Singh Gupta, Aditya Raina, Jaideep Khanna, Udian Sharma, Gopal Singh, Venkateswara Rao Anumolu, Sudeep Kumar, Mayuri Raghuvanshi, Badri Prasad Singh, Seshatalpa Sai Bandaru, Udayaditya Banerjee, O. P. Gaggar, Abhijit Sengupta, Ankit Anandraj Shah, Kundan Kumar Lal, Manju Jetley, Gautam Das, Balaji Srinivasan, Joseph Aristotle S., Mohit Paul, Sumit Sinha, Supriya Juneja, P. V. Yogeswaran, Alok Shukla, Anjani Aiyagari, Jinendra Jain, Anjana Chandrashekar, Munawwar Naseem, Jayant Mohan, Vikas Mehta, Gopal Singh, Arun Aggarwal, M/S. Aura & Co., Pramod Dayal, Manjeet Chawla, A. N. Arora, Ritesh Agrawal, Himanshu Shekhar, Sarla Chandra, Kumar Mihir, Jinendra Jain, N. Rajaraman, Shekhar Kumar, Priya Puri, P. S. Sudheer, Pritha Srikumar, Seshatalpa Sai Bandaru, S. Mahendran, Varun Punia, Manju Jetley, Aviral Kashyap, Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Gaurav Sharma, Rahul Gupta, M. T. George, Umesh Kumar Khaitan, Dr. Harish Uppal, Taleshwar Prasad, Gagan Gupta, Vikas Mehta, Apoorv Khator, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINTS
District Forum has no power to extend the time for filing the response to the complaint beyond the period of 15 days in addition to 30 days as is envisaged under Section 13.
The commencing point of limitation of 30 days under Section 13 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.

Headnote:
(a) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 13(2)(a) - Time for response of opposite party - 30 days, extendable by 15 days - No more - Section 13(2)(b)(ii) providing for ex parte decision on complaint on opposite party failing to file response within prescribed period or extended period - On the other hand other provisions like section 13(3A), 15, 19 and 24A and Regulation 14, Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 give discretion to the forum to condone delay for sufficient reasons - No such discretion provided u/s 13(2)(a) - Mere denial of further extension will not amount to violation of natural justice - Section 13(3). (Para 13, 15, 17)
(b) Interpretation of statute - Mandatory provision - Provision couched in prohibitive or negative language - Rarely directory - Use of peremptory language in a negative form makes the provision mandatory - Hardship cannot be a ground to interpret a mandatory provision as directory - (Para 18)
(c) Administration of justice - Provision of law has to be strictly complied - Law prevails over equity - Equity can only supplement the law, and not supplant it - There is no scope for interpretation of an unambiguous provision on equitable ground. (Para 19)
(d) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 13(2)(a) and order VIII Rile 1 and 10, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Contention for applying Order VIII rule 1 to Section 13(2)(a) and thus holding Section 13(2)(a) directory on ground of parity rejected - While Section 13(2)(a) provides for consequences of non compliance, there is no such condition attached to Order VIII rule 1 - Although Order VIII rule 1 is generally directory in nature, it is made mandatory for commercial suits - Section 13(2)(a) is mandatory. (Para 21)
(e) Administration of justice - Natural justice - To be observed generally - not where the same is specifically excluded. (Para 28)
(f) Section 13(2)(a) and (b) r/w Regulation 10 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 - Commencement of period for filing response by opposite party - From the date of receipt of notice accompanied by a copy of the complaint, and not merely receipt of the notice without complaint -Clarified that objection of not having received a copy of complaint along with notice should be raised on the first date itself and not thereafter. (Para 40)
Facts of the case:
The reference made to this Constitution Bench relates to the grant of time for filing response to a complaint under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The first question referred is as to whether Section 13(2) (a) of the Consumer Protection Act, which provides for the respondent/opposite party filing its response to the complaint within 30 days or such extended period, not exceeding 15 days, should be read as mandatory or directory; i.e., whether the District Forum has power to extend the time for filing the response beyond the period of 15 days, in addition to 30 days.
The second question which is referred is as to what would be the commencing point of limitation of 30 days stipulated under the aforesaid Section.
Finding of the court:
District Forum has no power to extend the time for filing the response to the complaint beyond the period of 15 days in addition to 30 days as is envisaged under Section 13.
The commencing point of limitation of 30 days under Section 13 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.

Judgement Key Points

No legal document was provided in your query (the {content} placeholder appears to be empty). Please provide the full content and any specific question or task (e.g., summarize key points, extract clauses, or analyze), and I'll assist accordingly using the specified citation format.

JUDGMENT

Vineet Saran, J.

Leave granted.

2. The reference made to this Constitution Bench relates to the grant of time for filing response to a complaint under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act'). The first question referred is as to whether Section 13(2) (a) of the Consumer Protection Act, which provides for the respondent/opposite party filing its response to the complaint within 30 days or such extended period, not exceeding 15 days, should be read as mandatory or directory; i.e., whether the District Forum has power to extend the time for filing the response beyond the period of 15 days, in addition to 30 days. The second question which is referred is as to what would be the commencing point of limitation of 30 days stipulated under the aforesaid Section.

3. The first question was referred by a two judge Bench of this Court vide an Order dated 11.02.2016 passed in Civil Appeal No(s). 1083-1084 of 2016, M/s Bhasin Infotech and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. versus M/s Grand Venezia Buyers Association (Reg), the relevant portion of which is as under:

"There is an apparent conflict between the decisions of this Court in Topline Shoes Limited v.Corporation Bank [(2002) 6 SCC 33], Kailash v.Nankhu [(2005) 4 SCC 480], Salem Advocate Bar Association v.Union of India [(2005) 6 SCC 344] on the one hand and J.J. Merchant & Ors. v.Shrinath Chaturvedi [(2002) 6 SCC 635 and NIA v.Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage [2014 AIOL 4615] on the other in so far as the power of the Courts to extend time for filing of written statement/reply to a complaint is concerned. The earlier mentioned line of decisions take the view that the relevant provisions including those of Order 8 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 are directory in nature and the Courts concerned have the power to extend time for filing the written statement. The second line of decisions which are also of coordinate Benches however takes a contrary view and hold that when it comes to power of the Consumer Fora to extend the time for filing a reply there is no such power.

Since the question that falls for determination here often arises before the Consumer Fora and Commissions all over the country it will be more appropriate if the conflict is resolved by an authoritative judgment. Further since the conflict is between Benches comprising three Judges we deem it fit to refer these appeals to a five-Judge Bench to resolve the conflict once and for all. While we do so we are mindful of the fact that in the ordinary course a two-Judge Bench ought to make a reference to a three-Judge Bench in the first place but in the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the conflict is between coordinate Benches comprising three Judges a reference to three Judges may not suffice."

4. The other question has been referred by another Division Bench of this Court by an Order dated 18.01.2017 passed in this very appeal being Civil Appeal No(s). 10941-10942 of 2013, NIA v.Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd, the relevant portion of the judgment is as under:

"..........what is the commencing point of the limitation of 30 days stipulated in Section 13 of the Act is required to be decided authoritatively. The declaration made in JJ Merchant's case that the said period is to be reckoned from the date of the receipt of the notice by the opposite party or complaint under the Act requires in our humble opinion, a more critical analysis."

5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and have carefully gone through the records.

6. In the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Consumer Protection Act, in paragraph 4, it has been specifically provided that the Consumer Protection Act is "To provide speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes, a quasi-judicial machinery is sought to be set up at the district, State and Central levels........ The Preamble of the Consumer Protection Act also mentions that the Act is "to provide fo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2020 Supreme(SC) 234

Cases Referred (19)