2023 Supreme(Online)(SC) 5087
B.V. NAGARATHNA, UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS. – Appellant
Versus
PARALAM GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED – Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5030/2023
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Ms. K Enatoli Sema, Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Mr. Prang Newmai
For the Respondents: Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu, Mr. Pai Amit, Ms. Vanshika Dubey, Mr. P. Ashok
The Court allowed the condonation of delay in filing a written statement, emphasizing the need to evaluate applications based on their merits while considering prior judicial interpretations.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Section 13(2) - Delay in filing the written statement - Appellant's application for recall of earlier order denied on grounds of non-compliance with time frames set forth in the Act - Court considered prior judgments regarding condonation of delay and the necessity of strict adherence to timelines. (Para 12)
(B) Judicial Precedent - Courts must adhere to timelines unless sufficient justification is provided - Reason for delay accepted as meetings with counsel delayed preparation of written statement. (Paras 22, 25)
Facts of the case:
Appellants, aggrieved by NCDRC's order dismissing their application for condonation of delay in filing a written statement, argued their case based on prior interpretations of the law, seeking relief under the principle established in previous judgments.
Findings of Court:
The court found sufficient grounds to condone the delay based on the reasons outlined, allowing the appeal and directing costs to be paid.
Issues: The court primarily addressed whether the application for condonation of delay was sufficient given the statutory framework.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that applications filed prior to the Supreme Court's directive in Diamond Exports may be evaluated on their merits, ensuring that the interests of justice are served.
Result: Appeal allowed.
ORDER
Delay condoned. The appellant-New India Assurance Company Limited and others are aggrieved by the order dated 13.04.2023 by which I.A. No.947/2023 filed for recalling of the earlier order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short “the NCDRC”) in Consumer Complaint No.672/2019 dated 04.01.2023 seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statement was dismissed. Briefly stated the facts are that the appellants herein who were the respondents before the NCDRC, received notice from the NCDRC and had to file their written statement within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of notice or by an extended period of fifteen days as per Section 13 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (For short “the Act”). Admittedly, the written statement was not filed within the aforesaid period and there was a delay of forty four days beyond aforesaid forty five days in filing the written statement. An application seeking condonation of delay Digitally signed by RADHA SHARMA Date: 2023.11.22 14:31:37 IST Reason:
Signature Not Verified was filed. The said application being I.A. No.1376/2020 was dismissed by order dated 04.01.2023. Being aggrieved, the appellants herein filed another application (I.A. No.947/2023) seeking recall of the order dated 04.01.2023. By the impugned order dated 13.04.2023, the said application was also dismissed. Hence this appeal. Before proceeding further, it would be useful to narrate the development of law on the controversy that has arisen in this appeal. In Diamond Exports vs United India Insurance Company Limited, (2022) 4 SCC 169, (Diamond Exports) the history of the controversy has been recorded. That in New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited reported in (2020) 5 SCC 757 (Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (P) Ltd.) the Constitution Bench of this Court held that the outer limit of time for filing a written statement in Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is binding. But in Para 63 it was clarified by the Constitution Bench that the judgment would operate prospectively. Therefore, it was held that the District Forum has no power to condone delay beyond a discretionary period of fifteen days (in addition to thirty days) as is envisaged under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act (‘Act’, for short). But in Diamond Exports the controversy was, whether, prior to the decision of the Constitution Bench, NCDRC had condoned a delay for a period beyond the prescribed statutory outer limit, was correct or not. In this context, it is necessary to note that NCDRC had exercised its discretion on 25-2-2020 to condone the delay prior to the decision of the Constitution Bench on 4-3-2020. In Mampee Timbers & Hardwares [Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mampee Timbers & Hardwares (P) Ltd., (2021) 3 SCC 673], a two-Judge Bench of this Court had, on 10-2-2017, issued directions to the Consumer Fora as regards applications for condonation during the pendency of the reference to the Constitution Bench. Similarly, in Bhasin Infotech & Infrastructure (P) Ltd. vs. Grand Venezia Buyers Assn. (2018) 17 SCC 255 a two-Judge Bench of this Court had permitted parties to file written statements beyond the prescribed limitation period, subject to payment of appropriate costs. But subsequently, in Daddy's Builders (P) Ltd. vs. Manisha Bhargava (2021) 3 SCC 669 (Daddy's Builders) which was rendered on 11-2-2021 after the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage this Court had made certain observations. This Court held that the decision of the Constitution Bench was to operate with prospective effect, and, therefore, applications for condonation of delay filed before 4-3-2020 ought to be considered on merits. In A. Suresh Kumar vs. Amit Agarwal, (2021) 7 SCC 466, the observation of a prior
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
