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. This appeal arises from an order dated 22.07.2016 in Consumer Complaint No. 280 of 2015 (hereinafter the “Impugned Order”), wherein the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “NCDRC”) forfeited the right of the Appellant(s) to file its written statement on account of the Appellant(s) lapse in conforming to statutory period prescribed for filing its written statement, under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the “Act”).

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

2.1. The Respondent(s) filed a Consumer Complaint No. 280 of 2015 before the NCDRC on 12.05.2015, claiming a total amount of INR 47,36,25,000 (Indian Rupees Forty Seven Crore Thirty Six Lakh Twenty Five Thousand) as compensation on account of inter alia the death of his wife due to alleged medical negligence; and adoption of unfair trade practices by the Petitioner(s) herein whilst conducting a left thoracotomy i.e., mediastinal tumour excision under general anaesthesia (the “Underlying Complaint”).

2.2. In this context, vide an order dated 14.05.2015, the NCDRC issued notice to the opposite party i.e., the Appellants herein.

2.3. The Notice was received by the Appellant(s) on 27.05.2015; and accordingly, the Appellant(s) ought to have filed its’ WS within a period of 30 (thirty) days thereafter i.e., on or before 28.06.2015. However, the Appellant(s) filed its WS together with an application seeking condonation of delay on 12.04.2016 before the NCDRC i.e., after a delay of 285 (two hundred eightyfive) days beyond the 30 (thirty) day period granted to Appellant(s).

2.4. Vide the Impugned Order, the NCDRC closed the right of the Appellant(s) from filing their written statement on account of them exceeding the statutory period prescribed for filing such written statement, under Section 13 of the Act.

2.5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the Appellant(s) preferred the Special Leave Petition No. 36048 of 2016 i.e., now converted to this instant appeal.

2.6. Vide an order dated 16.12.2016, this Court issued notice in the instant appeal; and directed the Appellant(s) to pay a sum of INR 50,000 (Indian Rupees Fifty Thousand) as costs to the Respondent(s) pursuant to which upon receiving consent from the Respondents herein, the NCDRC was at liberty to proceed with the adjudication of the Underlying Complaint. Alternatively, the Respondents herein were free to seek a stay of proceeding(s) before the NCDRC pending disposal of the instant appeal.

2.7. Vide an order dated 01.11.2017, on account of the non-acceptance of the aforesaid cost(s) by the Respondents herein, the NCDRC kept further proceeding(s) in abeyance in terms of the order dated 16.12.2016 passed by this Court.

2.8. In the interregnum, a co-ordinate bench of this Court, noticed a conflict of opinion(s) in inter alia New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (P) Ltd., (2015) 16 SCC 20 (“New India Assurance 1”); J.J. Merchant (Dr) v. Shrinath Chaturvedi, (2002) 6 SCC 635; Kailash v. Nanhku, (2005) 4 SCC 480; Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344; and Topline Shoes Limited v. Corporation Bank, (2002) 6 SCC 33, and accordingly, placed similarly placed appeal(s) before a Constitution Bench of this Court vide an order dated 30.10.2017, with a view to bring a sense of finality vis-à-vis the manner of operation of Section 13 of the Act (the “Constitution Bench”) .

2.9. Pertinently, the Constitution Bench vide its decision in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (P) Ltd., (2020) 5 SCC 757 (hereinafter “New India Assurance 2”) categorically observed that the rigours of Section 13 of the Act needed to be complied with mandatorily; however, on account of various conflicting decision(s) of this Court, the Constitution Bench clarified that New India Assurance 2 (Supra) would operate prospectively.

2.10. Pertinently, du