Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 154
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
VASANTHI – Respondent
First Appeal No. 60 of 2021
For the Appellant:Mr. Vishnu Mehra, Advocate
For the Respondent:
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions must adhere to strict timelines for filing written statements, even if no objection is raised by the complainant.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act - Limitation for filing written statement - Condonation of delay - The present appeal concerns a case where the appellant sought to condone a delay of 392 days in filing the written statement after the Complainant provided no objection - The State Commission’s refusal to condone was deemed justified by the commission, referencing judgments from the Hon’ble Supreme Court including New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. and Dr. J.J. Merchant, which clarify jurisdiction over acceptance of written statements post the statutory period with emphasis on prior ruling precedence. (Paras 1-8)
(B) Appeal - Grounds for appeal - The core issue concerning condonation of delay in filing written statements and judicial precedents related to consumer fora’s jurisdiction were discussed, noting the appellant’s argument of the complainant’s lack of objection. Findings indicate the need to adhere strictly to the limitation laid down by the Supreme Court to ensure procedural integrity. (Paras 2-5)
Facts of the case:
The appeal was lodged against the State Commission’s order dismissing an application for condonation of a substantial delay in the submission of a written statement, with the appellant contending that there was no objection from the complainant.
Findings of Court:
The State Commission's refusal was upheld, maintaining the legal precedent that limits challengeable timelines.
Issues: The primary issue addressed was whether the Consumer Disputes Redressal fora has the authority to permit filing a written statement after the mandated period in light of the complainant's non-objection.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that decisions regarding limitations and procedural requirements must adhere to established judicial precedents, reaffirming that the Supreme Court’s interpretation of similar cases must guide current judgements.
Result: Appeal is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal against dismissal of delay in filing. (Para 1 , 1 , 2) |
| 2. issue surrounding filing written statements. (Para 3) |
| 3. supreme court rulings on written statement timelines. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
1. This Appeal is filed against the order dated 10.11.2020 of the Tamilnadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Madurai (in short “the State Commission) in M.P. No.15/2020 in CC/29/2019, whereby the State Commission dismissed the application filed by the Appellant/Opposite Party for condonation of delay of 392 days in filing the written statement. Appellant has made following prayer: -
“(i) allow the instant First Appeal and set aside/reverse the Impugned Order dated 10.11.2020 passed by the Learned State consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamil Nadu, Madurai in M.P. No.15 of 2020 in CC No.29/2019;
(ii) direct the Learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamil Nadu, Madurai to take on record the Written Version filed by the Opposite Party in CC No.29 of 2019 on 08.10.2020; and
(iii) Pass any other or further order(s) deemed fit by this Hon’ble Commission in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. The only issue in this Appeal relates to foreclosure of right of the Opposite Party to file written statement. The merits of this case, therefore, need not be discussed.
3. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellant and carefully gone through the record. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the State Commission failed to appreciate the fact that the Complainant had given no objection for filing the written statement. Once the Complainant had given no objection, State Commission had no jurisdiction to reject the application for condonation of delay in filing the written statement. It was submitted that the impugned order had been passed in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. In the said judgment, there is no bar or restriction for filing the written statement after expiry of period of 45 days, if the Complainant has given no objection.
4. On the issue of filing of written statement, law is very categoric. Three Judges Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. SLP (C) No.2833 of 2014 & SLP (C) Nos.11257-11258 of 2014 decided on 4.12.2015 had an occasion to interpret the scope of period of limitation for filing written statement, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: -
“17. We are, therefore, of the view that the judgment delivered in the case of Dr. J.J. Merchant (supra) holds the field and therefore, we reiterate the view that the District Forum can grant a further period of 15 days to the opposite party for filing his version or reply and not beyond that.
18. There is one more reason to follow the law laid down in the case of Dr. J.J. Merchant (supra). Dr. J.J. Merchant (supra) was decided in 2002, whereas Kailash (supra) was decided in 2005. As per law laid down by this Court, while deciding the case of Kailsh (supra), this Court ought to have respected the view expressed in Dr. J.J. Merchant ( supra) as the judgment delivered in the case of Dr. J.J. Merchant ( supra) was earlier in point of time. The aforesaid legal position cannot be ignored by us and therefore, we are of the opinion that the view expressed in Dr. J.J. Merchant (supra) should be followed.”
5. Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Daddy’s Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Manisha Bhargava and Anr.[Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 1240 of 2021] decided on 21.02.2021 observed as follows: -
“5. In any case, in view of the earlier decision of this Court in the case of J.J. Merchant (supra) and the subsequent authoritative decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (2020) 5 SCC 757, consumer fora has no jurisdiction an
