1. Consumer complaint for deficiency in service — Application for condonation of delay in filing written submission beyond the statutory 45-day period under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2021 Supreme(SC) 800
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi)
Vineet Saran, Aniruddha Bose, JJ.
Bhasin Infotech and Infrastructure Private Limited - Appellant
Versus
Neema Agarwal & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 73-74 of 2021
Decided On : 06-12-2021
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Time-frame for filing written submission or reply is same in respect of original complaints in all three Fora constituted under 1986 Act.
(2) Commencing point of limitation of 30 days under Section 13 of Consumer Protection Act would be from date of receipt of notice accompanied with complaint by opposite party, and not mere receipt of notice of complaint.
(1) Time-frame for filing written submission or reply is same in respect of original complaints in all three Fora constituted under 1986 Act.
(2) Commencing point of limitation of 30 days under Section 13 of Consumer Protection Act would be from date of receipt of notice accompanied with complaint by opposite party, and not mere receipt of notice of complaint.
Subject
Consumer Protection - Condonation of Delay in Filing Written Statement
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 13(2)(a) and 18--Written Statement – Limitation – Commencing point of limitation of 30 days under Section 13 of Consumer Protection Act would be from date of receipt of notice accompanied with complaint by opposite party, and not mere receipt of notice of complaint – District Forum has no power to extend time for filing response to complaint beyond period of 15 days in addition to 30 days as is envisaged under Section 13 of Consumer Protection Act – Time-frame for filing written submission or reply is same in respect of original complaints in all three Fora constituted under 1986 Act. (Paras 2 and 3)
(B) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 13(2)(a) and 18--Written Statement – Limitation – It would be artificial distinction to distinguish between applications for condonation of delay already decided before 4th March, 2020 and applications for condonation of delay pending on that date – Prospective operation of Judgment in case of New India Assurance Company Limited [(2020) 5 SCC 757] ought to cover both sets of cases in which delay in filing written reply stood condoned after accepting application for condonation of delay in filing written statement/reply as well as cases where decision on condonation of delay in filing written replies were pending on 4th March, 2020. (Para 9)
Facts of the case:
Present Civil appeals arise out of a decision of the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) delivered on 19th November, 2020 dismissing an interim application of the appellants for filing written submission or reply to a consumer complaint. Delay was beyond the period of 45 days, which is the prescribed period within which a reply has to be filed in terms of Section 13(2)(a) read with Section 18 of the 1986 Act.
Findings of Court:
As two Benches of equal strength have taken differing views on the manner in which the prospective application of the Constitution Bench judgment would be affected. In our opinion, this issue ought to be decided by a larger Bench. Registry directed to place this order along with the cause papers before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate direction.
Result : Matter referred to CJI.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :Pallavi Langar, Lokesh Bhola, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Prakhar Bhatnagar, Mohit Tyagi, Rakesh Kumar, Saurabh Tripathi, Advocates
For the Appellant(s) :Pallavi Langar, Lokesh Bhola, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Prakhar Bhatnagar, Mohit Tyagi, Rakesh Kumar, Saurabh Tripathi, Advocates
Table of Contents
2. Whether the prospective operation of the Constitution Bench judgment allows condonation of delay for applications filed before the judgment date but decided after it. (Para 4 , 8 )
3. Distinguishing between condoned and pending applications for delay is artificial; the right to have a pending application considered crystallizes upon filing. (Para 9 )
4. Conflicting views between coordinate benches on the prospective application of the Constitution Bench ruling regarding condonation of delay require resolution by a larger bench. (Para 8 , 9 )
5. Matter referred to the Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions and determination by a larger bench. (Para 10 )
6. Does the consumer forum have the power to extend the time for filing a response beyond 45 days?
No. The Constitution Bench held that the 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, totaling 45 days, as envisaged under the Consumer Protection Act. (Para 2 )
7. What is the commencing point for the 30-day limitation period for filing a response under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986?
The commencing point of the 30-day limitation period is the date of receipt of the notice accompanied with the complaint by the opposite party, rather than the mere receipt of the notice of the complaint. (Para 2 )
8. How does the prospective operation of the Constitution Bench judgment in New India Assurance affect pending applications for condonation of delay?
There are conflicting views: one suggests it only protects delays already condoned before the judgment, while another suggests it protects applications filed before the judgment. The court observed that prospective operation should logically cover both scenarios. (Para 8 , 9 )
ORDER :
These Civil appeals arise out of a decision of the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) delivered on 19th November, 2020 dismissing an interim application of the appellants for filing written submission or reply to a consumer complaint. The complaint was made on 15th March, 2018 by the respondents alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellants over cancellation of allotment of certain commercial units in a shopping mall. Notice was issued by the NCDRC to the application of the respondents under Section 12 (1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (which statute prevailed at the material point of time). On 18th April, 2019, when the matter was listed before the Commission, the appellants (respondents before the Commission) sought a week’s time to reply. On 23rd December 2019, the appellants filed reply to the application made under Section 12(1)(c) of the 1986 Act. That application, in substance, was to make the complaint in representative capacity. This application was allowed. The Commission had directed the appellants to file reply to the amended complaint within 30 days. The matter was adjourned till 21st May, 2020. The written submission was filed by the appellant to the consumer complaint along with an application for condonation of delay of 18 days in filing the written submission. There is some dispute over the actual number of days of delay, but that factor is not of much significance so far as the present appeal is concerned. Admitted position is that such delay was beyond the period of 45 days, which is the prescribed period within which a reply has to be filed in terms of Section 13(2)(a) read with Section 18 of the 1986 Act. There were certain other interlocutory orders passed in the matter, but these are not of much relevance for adjudication of the issues raised in the present Appeals.
2. By an order passed on 19th November, 2020, the Commission rejected the appellant’s application for condonation of delay, following a Constitution Bench decision of this Court delivered in a reference, titled New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. [(2020) 5 SCC 757]. In that Judgment decided on 4th March, 2020 and authored by one of us (Vineet Saran, J), two questions were formulated by the Constitution Bench. These were :-
“(i) Whether the District Forum has power to extend the time for filing of response to the complaint beyond the period of 15 days, in addition to 30 days, as envisaged Under Section 13(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act?
(ii) What would be the commencing point of limitation of 30 days Under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986?”
The Constitution Bench answered these questions in the said judgment in following terms:-
“41. To conclude, we hold that our answer to the first question is that the 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 of the Consumer Protection Act; and the answer to the second question is that 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.
This Judgment to operate prospectively.
The referred questions are answered accordingly.”
3. We would repeat here that the timeframe for filing written submission or reply is the same in respect of original complaints in all the three fora constituted under the 1986 Act, as per Section 18 thereof. In these appeals, we are concerned with the first question formulated by the Constitution Bench. This question was referred to by a two Judge Bench of this Court on 11th February, 2016 in a Civil Appeal of the same appellants only. Subsequent to the reference order dated 11th February, 2016, the question of jurisdiction of the consumer fora for extendi
