1. Medical negligence claim — Delay in filing written statement beyond the statutory period — Application for condonation of delay rejected by NCDRC. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2021 Supreme(SC) 317
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VINEET SARAN, DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.
Dr. A. Suresh Kumar and Others – Appellants
Versus
Amit Agarwal – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 988 of 2021
Decided On : 08-07-2021
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Delay in filing reply can be condoned subject to payment of cost.
Delay in filing reply can be condoned subject to payment of cost.
Subject
Civil Law - Condonation of Delay
Act Referred
Headnote
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section – Written statement – Limitation – Condonation of delay – Since application for condonation of delay was filed prior to judgment of Constitution Bench, which was delivered on 04.03.2020, said application for condonation of delay ought to have been considered on merits and should not have been dismissed on the basis of Constitution Bench judgment in case of New India Assurance Company Limited – Delay was only for 7 days for which valid explanation has been given and with consent of Counsel for parties – Impugned order of NCDRC set aside – Delay of 7 days in filing reply by appellants before NCDRC condoned but on payment of cost of Rs.25,000/-, to be paid by appellants to respondent within 15 days – In case, payment is not made, written statement already filed by appellants on 25.11.2019 shall not be accepted – However, if payment is made, written statement shall be accepted by NCDRC and every effort shall be made by NCDRC to decide complaint filed by respondent as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months. (Paras 2 to 6)
Result : Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. Anand Shankar Jha, Mr. Arpit Gupta, Mr. Girish Bhardwaj, Mr. Abhilash Gopinath, Mr. Shubham Tripathi.
For the Respondent: Mr. Amalpushp Shroti.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. Anand Shankar Jha, Mr. Arpit Gupta, Mr. Girish Bhardwaj, Mr. Abhilash Gopinath, Mr. Shubham Tripathi.
For the Respondent: Mr. Amalpushp Shroti.
Table of Contents
2. Whether a prospective judgment prohibiting condonation of delay beyond the statutory period applies to an application filed prior to the judgment's delivery. (Para 1 , 2 )
3. A judgment operating prospectively cannot be applied to an application for condonation of delay filed before the date of the judgment. (Para 2 )
4. Prospective judgments do not apply to proceedings or applications initiated prior to the date of the judgment. (Para 2 )
5. Appeal allowed — NCDRC order set aside — Delay condoned subject to payment of costs. (Para 3 , 5 , 6 )
6. Does a prospective judgment regarding the limitation for filing written statements apply to applications filed before the judgment's delivery?
No. If a judgment is explicitly stated to operate prospectively, it cannot be used to dismiss an application for condonation of delay that was filed prior to the delivery of that judgment. (Para 2 )
7. Can a court condone a short delay in filing a written statement if a valid explanation is provided?
Yes, the court may condone a short delay upon finding a valid explanation, potentially imposing costs on the party seeking condonation. (Para 5 )
ORDER :
1. The respondent had filed a claim for medical negligence against the appellants-Dr. A. Suresh Kumar and others. The appellants filed their reply but with a delay of 7 days beyond the period of 30+15 days (45 days). The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short ‘NCDRC’) rejected the application for condonation of delay in filing the written statement on the ground that in the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited, (2020) 5 SCC 757, it has been held that the delay beyond the period of 30+15 day (45 days) cannot be condoned by the NCDRC. However, in paragraph 63 of the said judgment dated 04.03.2020, it is categorically stated that this judgment would operate prospectively. In the present case, the written statement was filed by the appellants on 25.11.2019 with an application for condonation of delay of 7 days.
2. In our view, since the application for condonation of delay was filed prior to the judgment of the Constitution Bench, which was delivered on 04.03.2020, the said application for condonation of delay ought to have been considered on merits and should not have been dismissed on the basis of the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited (supra) because the said judgment was to operate prospectively and the written statement as well as the application for condonation of delay had been filed much prior to the said judgment.
3. Accordingly, the impugned order of the NCDRC deserves to be, and is, hereby set aside.
4. At this stage, learned counsel for the parties have submitted that this Court may consider the matter with regard to the condonation of delay of 7 days, which has been rejected by the NCDRC.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record and for the reasons given in the application for condonation of delay filed before the NCDRC and also considering the fact that the delay was only for 7 days for which valid explanation has been given and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, we condone the delay of 7 days in filing the reply by the appellants before NCDRC, but on payment of cost of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only). The said cost shall be paid by the appellants to the respondent within 15 days from today. In case, the said payment is not made, written statement already filed by the appellants on 25.11.2019 shall not be accepted. However, if the payment is made, the written statement shall be accepted by the NCDRC and every effort shall be made by the NCDRC to decide the complaint filed by the respondent as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months.
6. The appeal stands allowed with the above observations.
