SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(SC) 812

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.K. Maheshwari, Rajesh Bindal, JJ.
Ricardo Constructions Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Ravi Kuckian & Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 9958 of 2024
Decided On : 06-09-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv., Mr. Pranjit Bhattacharya, Adv., Mr. Vaibhav Niti, AOR, Ms. Sonam Mhatre, Adv., Ms. Raj Sarit Khare, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Aditya Parolia, Adv., Mr. Piyush Singh, Adv., Mr. Akshay Srivastava, Adv., Mr. Alankrit Bhatnagar, Adv., Mr. Suryansh Vashisth, Adv., Mr. Anshul Gupta, AOR

IMPORTANT POINT
Written Statement – Commencing point of limitation of 30 days would be from date of receipt of notice accompanied with complaint by opposite party and not on mere receipt of notice of complaint.

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 13[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 13] – Written Statement – Commencing point of limitation of 30 days – Commencing point of limitation of 30 days would be from date of receipt of notice accompanied with complaint by opposite party and not on mere receipt of notice of complaint – Impugned order passed by Commission insofar it foreclosed right of appellant to file written statement set aside – Appellant permitted to file written statement subject to payment of costs of Rs.1,00,000/- to each of complainants. (Paras 9 and 11)

Facts of the case:

Present appeal has been filed against order Consumer Complaint No.5 of 2024 dated 19.07.2024 passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in a complaint filed by respondent Nos.1 to 31 whereby right of appellant to file written statement was foreclosed. Complainants were given six weeks time to file affidavit of evidence and matter was directed to be listed on 09.01.2025.

Findings of Court:

Payment of costs shall be a condition precedent for acceptance of written statement on record. Costs shall be transferred in respective bank accounts of respondents. In case details thereof are not available with appellant, same can be taken in coordination with counsel representing them.

Result : Appeal allowed.

ORDER :

Rajesh Bindal, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed against the order1[Consumer Complaint No.5 of 2024] dated 19.07.2024 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,2[For short, ‘The Commission’] New Delhi in a complaint filed by respondent Nos.1 to 31 whereby the right of the appellant to file written statement was foreclosed. The complainants were given six weeks time to file affidavit of evidence and the matter was directed to be listed on 09.01.2025.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that time as provided in law, was not granted to file the written statement. Hence, the impugned order of the Commission may be set aside and the appellant may be given an opportunity to file written statement.

3. The order passed by the Commission on 06.02.2024 suggests that the counsel, who had appeared on behalf of the appellant was granted time to file vakalatnama. Notice was directed to be issued to the Opposite Party No.2 in the complaint and 30 days’ time was granted to the appellant to file its written statement, whereafter the complainants could file rejoinder and the matter was fixed on 19.07.2024 for the next hearing. As the appellant could not file the written statement within the time granted by the Commission, the right to file the same was foreclosed.

4. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that copy of the complaint was not supplied to the counsel of the appellant, hence, written statement could not be filed within the time granted. He further submits that the counsel had put in appearance merely, seeing the matter in the cause list on 06.02.2024, and had sought time to file the written statement. The copy of the complaint was not handed over to him. The service of notice on the appellant was not done by the process of the court. In the absence of a copy of the complaint, it was not possible for the appellant to file its written statement. Reliance has been placed on the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited, (2020) 5 SCC 757 : 2020 INSC 274 : [2020] 5 S.C.R. 429 to support the arguments raised by the appellant.

5. It was further urged that there is no cause on the part of the appellant to delay the proceedings. Counsel for the appellant accepted notice in the complaint on the very first date of hearing i.e. 06.02.2024, otherwise notice on that day was issued to the opposite party No. 2 and matter was listed for further orders/directions on 19.07.2024. Even after foreclosing the right of the appellant to file the written statement on 19.07.2024 and granting six weeks’ time to the complainants to file affidavit of evidence, the next date of hearing was fixed more than five months thereafter. In such circumstances if opportunity is granted to the appellant to file its written statement, he shall file the same without delay and the complainants thereafter would have sufficient time to file rejoinder and also affidavit of evidence, much before the next date of hearing on 09.01.2025 as fixed by the Commission.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 31/complainants before the Commission, submitted that in view of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of this Court in New India Assurance Company Limited’s case (supra), a maximum period of 45 days’ can be granted to opposite party to file the written statement and the Commission had rightly foreclosed the right of the appellant to file the written statement as from the date of acceptance of notice, more than 45 days had expired. The written statement had not yet been filed. It was the duty of the appellant to have asked for a copy of the complaint from the counsel for the complainant, in case it was not received or supplied. The appellant merely wants to delay the proceedings.

7. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the relevant referred record.

8. It is evident from the impugned order

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top