Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Navin Chawla, J.
Manish Kumar - Appellant
Versus
All India Institute Of Medical Sciences & Ors. - Respondents
C.M. (M) No. 285 of 2019; C M No. 7907 of 2019, 42712 of 2019
Decided On : 01-03-2021
Consumer Protection Act - Delay in filing written version - Section 13(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 13(2)(a) of the Act, which prescribes the time limit for filing the written version, and the limitations on the power of the Commission to condone the delay. The court also referred to the judgments of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. and Daddy s Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Manisha Bhargava and Anr., highlighting the interpretation of the statutory provisions and their applicability to the case. The court emphasized that the delay in filing the written version cannot be condoned without sufficient cause and that equity cannot aid the respondent due to their failure to comply with the prescribed timelines.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order of the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission allowing the respondent to file its written version despite the expiry of the statutory period for filing the reply. The petitioner argued that the Commission had no power to condone the delay once the statutory period had expired and that the order was passed without supplying a copy of the application seeking condonation of delay/review by the respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in filing the written version by the respondent could not be condoned without sufficient cause and that the Impugned Order was without jurisdiction and in violation of Section 13 of the Act. The court set aside the Impugned Order and directed that the written version filed by the respondent should not be taken on record by the Commission.
Issues: The issues involved the power of the Commission to condone the delay in filing the written version, the applicability of statutory provisions, and the maintainability of the petition in light of alternate remedies available.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the delay in filing the written version cannot be condoned without sufficient cause and that the availability of an alternate remedy cannot be a bar to entertaining the petition when the impugned order is without jurisdiction and in violation of the Act.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the Impugned Order was set aside. The written version filed by the respondent was not to be taken on record by the Commission, but this would not prejudice the respondent in its future defense in the consumer complaint, in accordance with the law.
JUDGMENT
Navin Chawla, J. - The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the present petition is directed only against the respondent no.1 and no relief has been claimed against the respondent nos. 5 and 6 in the present petition, the adjudication of the present petition need not await the service of notice of the petition on the respondent nos. 5 and 6 and they be treated as deleted from the array of the parties as far as the present petition is concerned. It is ordered accordingly.
2. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 25.01.2019 passed by the learned National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned Commission') in Consumer Complaint No.261/2018, Manish Kumar v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences & 6 Ors., allowing the respondent no. 1, which is the Opposite Party no.1 in the Consumer Complaint, to file its written version to the Complaint.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that notice of the complaint was issued to the respondents, including the respondent no.1 on 07.02.2018. The respondent no. 1 was duly served with the notice on 12.04.2018. The statutory period for filing of the reply to the complaint as provided in Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), including the maximum condonable period of delay, had expired on 03.07.2018, when the complaint was listed before the learned Commission. In spite of the same, the learned Commission condoned the delay in filing of the reply by the respondent no. 1 and extended the time by a period of one week therefrom. The written version of the respondent no. 1 was, however, still not filed.
4. The complaint was then listed before the learned Commission on 31.08.2018, when recording the undertaking of the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 that the written version would be filed during the course of the day, the learned Commission was pleased to again condone the delay, directing that a cost of Rs. 25,000/- be paid to the complainant by way of a Demand Draft within a period of four weeks therefrom.
5. As neither the written version was filed nor the cost was paid, on an application of the petitioner, being IA 19048/2018, the learned Commission by its order dated 12.10.2018 was pleased to close the right of the respondent no. 1 to file its written version.
6. On 25.01.2019, however, by the Impugned Order, which is nonspeaking in nature the learned Commission has been pleased to condone the further delay in filing of the written version; reviewed its order dated 12.10.2018; and allowed further opportunity to the respondent no. 1 to file its written version.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the Commission, apart from being legally unsustainable on the ground that the learned Commission has no power to condone the delay once the statutory period including the maximum permissible period by which the delay in filing written version can be condoned has expired, does not record any reason for condoning the delay. She submits that the Impugned Order has also been passed without supplying a copy of the application, if any, by the respondent no. 1 seeking condonation of delay/review of the order dated 12.10.2018 filed by the respondent no. 1. In support of her submissions, she has placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., (2020) 5 SCC 757; and Daddy s Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Manisha Bhargava and Anr.,2021 SCCOnLineSC 82.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent no. 1 could also not have taken the benefit of the pendency of the reference before the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra), inasmuch as, the Supreme Court in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. v. Mampee Timbers and Hardwares Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.,2017 SCCOnLineSC 2027 had placed reliance
The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission exceeded its jurisdiction by condoning delay in filing written version beyond the statutory period, which is mandatory under the Consumer Protection....
Mandatory timelines under the Consumer Protection Act for filing responses are rigid, and courts cannot extend them beyond stipulated periods.
(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....
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) Delay - The delay of each and every day has to be explained.(2) Due Diligence - The basic test to determine whether the delay is reasonable or whether the party has been acting with due diligence....
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
