IMPORTANT POINT
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.

JUDGMENT :

Satish Chandra Sharma, J.

1. These appeal(s) arise from (i) an order dated 22.08.2013 in Consumer Complaint No. 52 of 2013, wherein the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “NCDRC”) forfeited the right of the Appellant Company to file its written statement on account of the Appellant Company’s lapse in conforming to statutory period prescribed for filing its written statement, under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the “Act”); and (ii) an order dated 30.09.2013 wherein the NCDRC dismissed the Review Application bearing number 309 of 2013 filed against the aforementioned order dated 22.08.2013 (hereinafter (a) the order dated 22.08.2013; and (b) the order dated 30.09.2013, shall collectively be referred to as the “Impugned Order”).

2. The facts and proceedings germane to the contextual understanding of the present lis are as follows:

2.1. The Respondent filed a Consumer Complaint No. 52 of 2013 before the NCDRC on 27.02.2013, vis-à-vis the repudiation of claim made on the strength of 4 (four) insurance policies availed from the Appellant Company. Pertinently, the underlying claim emanated from losses arising out of an incident of ‘sprouting of potatoes’ that took place at the factory of the Respondent (the “Underlying Complaint”).

2.2. In this context, vide an order dated 08.03.2013, the NCDRC issued notice to the opposite party i.e., the Appellant Company herein, and directed it to file its written submission (“WS”) in response to the Underlying Complaint within 30 (thirty) days from the receipt of notice under Section 13 of the Act.

2.3. Notice was received by the Appellant Company on 19.03.2013; and accordingly, the Appellant Company ought to have filed its’ WS within a period of 30 (thirty) days thereafter. However, the Appellant Company filed its WS together with an application seeking condonation of delay on 23.07.2013 before the NCDRC i.e., after a delay of 79 (seventy-nine) days beyond the 30 (thirty) day period granted to Appellant Company.

2.4. Vide the Impugned Order, the NCDRC forfeited the right of the Appellant Company from filing its written statement on account of a contravention of the statutory period prescribed for filing such written statement, under Section 13 of the Act.

2.5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the Appellant Company preferred the instant appeal under Section 23 of the Act.

2.6. Vide an order dated 29.11.2013 this Court (i) admitted the underlying appeal(s) and took note of the difference of opinion inter se co-ordinate benches of this Court in J.J. Merchant (Dr) v. Shrinath Chaturvedi, (2002) 6 SCC 635 and Kailash v. Nanhku, (2005) 4 SCC 480 vis-à-vis limitation period for filing of a written statement under Section 13 of the Act; (ii) directed the Appellant to a sum of INR 45,00,000 (Indian Rupees Forty Five Lakh) i.e., the damage amount assessed by a surveyor under Section 64UM of the Act, towards the claim of the Respondent (the “Subject Amount”); and (iii) stayed the operation of the Impugned Order.

2.7. Accordingly, in compliance with the aforesaid order, the Appellant Company deposited the Subject Amount before the Registry of this Court.

2.8. Thereafter, the instant appeal together with several similarly placed appeal(s) were placed for consideration before a Bench comprising of 3 Judges of this Court. The said Bench vide their decision in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (P) Ltd., (2015) 16 SCC 20 (hereinafter “New India Assurance 1”) held that the rigours of Section 13 of the Act were mandatory and accordingly, observed that the law laid down by this Court in J.J. Merchant (Supra) would prevail.

2.9. Subsequently, a co-ordinate bench of this Court, noticed a conflict of opinion(s) in inter alia New India Assurance 1 (Supra) ; J.J. Merchant (Supra); Kailash (Supra); Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344; and Topline Shoes Limited v. Corporation Bank, (2002) 6 SCC 33, and ac