Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, SURYA KANT, VIKRAM NATH, JJ.
M/s Acme Cleantech Solutions Private Limited - Appellant
Versus
M/s United India Insurance Company Limited & Anr. - Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos 4476-4477 of 2021
Decided On : 09-12-2021
Consumer Complaint - Insurance Claim - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 13(1), Section 22 - The court discussed the mandatory nature of the time limit for filing a written statement under Section 13(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the prospective effect of the judgment in New India Assurance Company Limited v Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited, (2020) 5 SCC 757. The court held that the appellant could not be compelled to amend the complaint and that the NCDRC was in error in issuing a direction to the appellant to amend the complaint and in permitting the first respondent to file its written statement to the amended complaint.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a consumer complaint against the first respondent for failing to settle an insurance claim arising from alleged storms damaging solar power plants. The first respondent did not file a written statement within the prescribed period, and later sought dismissal of the complaint as premature. The NCDRC directed the appellant to file an amended complaint and allowed the first respondent to file a written statement to the amended complaint.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant could not be compelled to amend the complaint and that the NCDRC was in error in issuing a direction to the appellant to amend the complaint and in permitting the first respondent to file its written statement to the amended complaint.
Issues: The issues involved the mandatory nature of the time limit for filing a written statement, the effect of repudiation of the claim, and the appellant's right to decide whether to amend the complaint or pursue it as it stands.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the time limit for filing a written statement under Section 13(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is mandatory, and the appellant could not be compelled to amend the complaint.
Final Decision: The court set aside the NCDRC's order and clarified that the appellant could pursue the complaint as it stands, seek an amendment to the complaint, or withdraw the complaint with liberty to file a fresh complaint to challenge the alleged act of repudiation.
JUDGMENT :
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J.
1. These appeals arise from an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission [“NCDRC”] dated 11 March 2021 in IA 3463 of 2020 and IA 1346 of 2021.
2. The appellant instituted a consumer complaint before the NCDRC on 28 September 2019, being Consumer Complaint No 1934 of 2019. Briefly stated, the grievance of the appellant was that the first respondent had failed to settle the insurance claim of the appellant arising out of the two alleged storms which damaged the solar power plants of the appellants. The relief which was claimed in the complaint is set out below, for convenience of reference:
A. insurance claim towards material damage to the tune of INR 13,91,78,987.75/- and
B. insurance claim towards business interruption to the tune of INR 6,00,00,000/-
(ii) Direct the Respondents to pay interest @ 18% per annum for the period of delay from 13.06.2016 being the date when the Complainant intimated about the incident and claim, till the date of actual payment of the Claim of the Complainant; and
(iii) Direct the Respondents to pay compensation to the tune of INR 1,00,00,000/- on account of harassment, mental agony, fraud & deception, hardship and inconvenience caused to the Complainant due to acts of deficiency in services, negligence and unfair trade practices on part of the Respondents; and
(iv) Direct the Respondents to pay INR 5,00,000/- towards litigation expenses.”
3. On 17 October 2019, the NCDRC passed the following order:
Complaint is admitted subject to just exceptions.
Issue notice of the complaint to the opposite party under Section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 making it clear that if opposite party wishes to file its written statement, it may do so within 30 days from the date of service of the notice of the complaint, failing which right to file the written statement may be closed.”
4. Notice of the complaint was served on the first respondent on 5 November 2019. The first respondent did not file its written statement within the period stipulated by Section 13(1) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 [“Act”]. On 6 March 2020, the first respondent filed IA 3463 of 2020 seeking the dismissal of the consumer complaint on the ground that it was premature. In paragraph 10 of the application, the averment was to the following effect:
5. No reference was made in the IA to the repudiation of the claim. On the same day, 6 March 2020, the first respondent issued a letter repudiating the claim of the appellant. In the meantime, the appellant sought copies of the final survey report. In its response to IA 3463 of 2020, the appellant, inter alia, raised the plea that the right to file the written statement had been barred in view of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of this Court in New India Assurance Company Limited v Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited, (2020) 5 SCC 757.
6. The appellant filed IA 1346 of 2021 on 11 February 2021 seeking production of the final survey report. Both IA 3463 of 2020 filed by the first respondent and IA 1346 of 2021 filed by the appellant were heard by the NCDRC and, by an order dated 11 March 2021, have been disposed of. The NCDRC has directed the appellant to file an amended complaint and has granted an opportunity to the first respondent to file a written statement. The appellant has accordingly challenged the order to the extent that it directs the appellant to file an amended complaint and allows the first respondent to file a written state
The time limit for filing a written statement under Section 13(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is mandatory, and the party moving the forum is entitled to decide whether to amend the pleading....
Appellant cannot be compelled to amend complaint. Whether pleading in nature of a plaint in a civil suit or a complaint before consumer forum should be amended is a matter for plaintiff or, as the ca....
Written Statement – Limitation – Application(s) seeking condonation of delay preferred before Consumer Fora prior to 04.03.2020, must be decided on merits and ought not to be summarily dismissed.
Written Statement – Limitation – Application(s) seeking condonation of delay preferred before Consumer Fora prior to 04.03.2020, must be decided on merits and ought not to be summarily dismissed.
(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 Sectio....
Discretion for condonation of delay under Section 13 of Consumer Protection Act,1986 is specifically circumscribed by Statute.
The acceptance of a written statement beyond the statutory period of 45 days under the Consumer Protection Act is impermissible and constitutes a gross abuse of jurisdiction, violating principles of ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
