1. Appeal against an order foreclosing the right to file a written statement in a consumer complaint due to alleged delay. (Para 1 , 3 )
Back
Next 
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
Important Points
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.
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.
Subject
Consumer Law - Procedural Law
Act Referred
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.
Legal Category Hierarchy
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
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
Table of Contents
2. Appellant claims non-receipt of complaint copy prevented timely filing; respondents argue the statutory time limit expired and the appellant intended to delay proceedings. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
3. Acceptance of notice on the first hearing indicates no intent to delay, and the record does not prove the complaint copy was actually supplied. (Para 8 , 10 )
4. Limitation for filing a response under the Consumer Protection Act commences from the date of receipt of notice accompanied by the complaint, not mere notice. (Para 9 )
5. Appeal allowed; order foreclosing the right to file written statement set aside, permitting filing subject to payment of costs. (Para 11 )
6. When does the limitation period for filing a written statement begin under the Consumer Protection Act?
The limitation period of 30 days commences from the date the opposite party receives the notice accompanied by the complaint, rather than the mere receipt of the notice of the complaint. (Para 9 )
7. Can the right to file a written statement be foreclosed if the record does not confirm the supply of the complaint copy?
It is considered too harsh to foreclose the right to file a written statement based on conjectures when the court record does not explicitly state that the copy of the complaint was supplied to the party or their counsel. (Para 10 )
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
