Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MANOJ JAIN, J.
M/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Vikram Barwal & Ors. - Respondents
CM(M) 39 of 2024 & CM APPL. 1158 of 2024 & CM APPL. 14222 of 2024, CM(M) 33 of 2024 & CM APPL. 942 of 2024 & CM APPL. 14223 of 2024 & CM APPL. 14225 of 2024
Decided on : 20-11-2024
(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Section 13 - Written statement - Time limit for filing written statement is 30 days, extendable by 15 days - The Commission has no power to extend the time beyond this limit as held in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (P) Ltd.: (2020) 5 SCC 757. (Paras 8, 42)
(B) Service of notice - Service must be meaningful; mere dim pages do not invalidate service - The opposite parties failed to demonstrate timely action to seek relief regarding alleged illegibility of documents. (Paras 22, 40)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged the NCDRC's dismissal of their applications for extension of time to file written statements, claiming that the complaint documents were illegible.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the service was valid and the applications were time-barred.
Issues: The main issue was whether the service of the complaint was meaningful despite some pages being dim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the opposite parties had a duty to act promptly and could not delay their response based on the condition of the documents.
Result: The petitions were dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
MANOJ JAIN, J
1. The respondents, thirty-two in number, filed a joint complaint before the learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“NCDRC” in short) on its original side.
2. The opposite parties (OPs) therein are M/S TDI Infrastructure Ltd. and M/S Cannes Property Management Services Pvt. Ltd. Learned NCDRC, vide order dated 20.09.2023, closed their right to file written statements and consequently dismissed applications of OPs. Their review applications were also dismissed, observing that there was no mistake apparent on the face of record.
3. Such orders are under challenge.
4. Since both the petitioners herein are defending the same complaint and are Opposite Party No.1 and 2 respectively in said complaint and since similar contentions have been raised by them, both the petitions are being disposed of by this common order. The petition filed by M/S TDI Infrastructure Ltd bearing No. CM (M) No. 33/2024 shall be treated as lead case for reference purpose.
5. For the sake of convenience, I would be referring to the parties as per their nomenclature before the learned Commission and, therefore, the petitioner - M/S TDI Infrastructure Ltd would be referred to as “Opposite Party No. 1” and M/S Cannes Property Management Services Pvt. Ltd. would be referred as “Opposite Party No. 2” and all the respondents herein would be referred to as “complainants”.
6. There is no dispute that as and when any such complaint is filed, the opposite party is required to file its written statement. The initial period, within which such written statement/response is to be filed, is 30 days, which can be further extended by another period of 15 days.
7. Thus, in all, any such opposite party (OP) is entitled to have a period of 45 days, within which it can file its response.
8. It is also no longer, res integra, that such period is rigid and the Commission has no power to extend the time for filing such response beyond the period of 15 days, in addition to initial period of 30 days. Such time-limit, in view of judgment of Constitution Bench of Supreme Court given in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (P) Ltd.: (2020) 5 SCC 757 has been held as inflexible which cannot be extended. Para 62 of said judgment reads as under:-
9. There is no qualm that such time would start to run from the date of receipt of notice, accompanied with complaint.
10. The question is as to what would be the starting time where though the notice accompanies the complaint, certain pages and annexures thereof are found to be dim and illegible.
11. According to learned counsel for OP No.1, the service was effected only on 23.05.2022 and as per the notice received from the learned Commission, they were required to appear before the learned Commission on 24.08.2022. Thus, the date of 24.08.2022 was “first date” for the opposite parties to appear before the learned Commission. However, since several pages of complaint were faint, dim and not fully legible, they were in no position to submit appropriate response and, therefore, they prayed that the complainants may be directed to provide them with a complete and legible set of paper book of the complaint so as to enable them to file written statement in the stipulated period to be reckoned from the receiving of the complete and legible set of such paper book.
12. Such applications were moved by them on 04.07.2022.
13. It was als
The court affirmed that the time limit for filing written statements under the Consumer Protection Act is inflexible and cannot be extended beyond the stipulated period, emphasizing the necessity for....
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.
Mandatory timelines under the Consumer Protection Act for filing responses are rigid, and courts cannot extend them beyond stipulated periods.
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.
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
