Date of the Judgment: 08 July 2021
Citation: (2021) INSC 408
Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari.
Can a delay in filing a written statement in a consumer case be condoned if the delay occurred before a judgment that prospectively restricted such condonation? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a case involving medical negligence, clarifying the application of a Constitution Bench judgment regarding condonation of delay. The bench comprised Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, with the opinion being unanimous.
Case Background
The case arose from a claim of medical negligence filed by the respondent, Amit Agarwal, against the appellants, Dr. A. Suresh Kumar and others. The appellants were required to file their written statement within 30 days, extendable by another 15 days, totaling 45 days. However, the appellants filed their reply with a delay of 7 days beyond this 45-day period. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) rejected the appellants’ application for condonation of this delay, citing a previous Supreme Court judgment.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 25.11.2019 | Appellants filed their written statement with a 7-day delay and an application for condonation of delay. |
| 04.03.2020 | The Supreme Court delivered the judgment in New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited, which prospectively restricted condonation of delay beyond 45 days. |
| 08.07.2021 | The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, condoning the 7-day delay. |
Course of Proceedings
The NCDRC rejected the application for condonation of delay, relying on the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench judgment in New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited. This judgment held that delays beyond 45 days could not be condoned by the NCDRC. However, the Supreme Court noted that this judgment was explicitly stated to operate prospectively. The appellants’ written statement and condonation application were filed before this judgment, making the NCDRC’s reliance on it incorrect.
Legal Framework
The core legal issue revolved around the interpretation and application of the Supreme Court’s judgment in New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited. The relevant point was that the judgment was explicitly stated to operate prospectively, meaning it would only apply to cases filed after the date of the judgment (04.03.2020).
Arguments
The appellants argued that their application for condonation of delay was filed on 25.11.2019, well before the Constitution Bench judgment of 04.03.2020. Therefore, the NCDRC should have considered their application on its merits, rather than dismissing it based on a judgment that was not applicable to their case. The appellants also submitted that the delay was only for 7 days, for which a valid explanation was provided.
The respondent did not specifically argue against the condonation of delay before the Supreme Court.
| Submission | Sub-Submission | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Application for condonation of delay should be considered on merits | Application was filed before the Constitution Bench Judgment | Appellants |
| Application for condonation of delay should be considered on merits | Delay was only for 7 days and valid explanation was provided | Appellants |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the NCDRC was correct in rejecting the application for condonation of delay based on the Constitution Bench judgment in New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited, given that the said judgment was to operate prospectively and the application for condonation of delay was filed prior to the judgment.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the NCDRC was correct in rejecting the application for condonation of delay based on the Constitution Bench judgment? | The Supreme Court held that the NCDRC was incorrect in rejecting the application for condonation of delay, as the Constitution Bench judgment was to operate prospectively and the application was filed before the judgment. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authority:
| Authority | Court | How it was considered |
|---|---|---|
| New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited, (2020) 5 SCC 757 | Supreme Court of India | The Court considered the prospective nature of the judgment and held that it was not applicable to the present case. |
Judgment
| Submission | How the Court treated the submission |
|---|---|
| Application for condonation of delay should be considered on merits | The Court agreed with the submission and held that the NCDRC should have considered the application on merits |
| Delay was only for 7 days and valid explanation was provided | The Court considered this submission and condoned the delay on the payment of cost. |
The Supreme Court set aside the NCDRC’s order, stating that the application for condonation of delay should have been considered on its merits. The Court noted that the Constitution Bench judgment in New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited [ (2020) 5 SCC 757 ] was to operate prospectively. The Court then considered the merits of the condonation application and, with the consent of the parties, condoned the 7-day delay on the condition that the appellants pay a cost of Rs. 25,000 to the respondent within 15 days. The Court directed the NCDRC to accept the written statement if the payment was made and to decide the complaint expeditiously, preferably within six months.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle of prospective application of law. The Court emphasized that the Constitution Bench judgment was explicitly stated to operate prospectively, and therefore, it could not be applied to cases where the cause of action arose before the date of the judgment. The Court also considered the fact that the delay was only for 7 days and that a valid explanation was provided.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Prospective Application of Law | 60% |
| Short Delay of 7 Days | 25% |
| Valid Explanation | 15% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Court’s reasoning was based on the following points:
The Court explicitly stated that the NCDRC should have considered the application for condonation of delay on its own merits and not based on the Constitution Bench judgment. The Court observed:
“In our view, since the application for condonation of delay was filed prior to the judgment of the Constitution Bench, which was delivered on 04.03.2020, the said application for condonation of delay ought to have been considered on merits and should not have been dismissed on the basis of the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited (supra) because the said judgment was to operate prospectively and the written statement as well as the application for condonation of delay had been filed much prior to the said judgment.”
The Court also noted the delay was minimal:
“…considering the fact that the delay was only for 7 days for which valid explanation has been given…”
The Court, with the consent of the parties, condoned the delay while imposing costs:
“…we condone the delay of 7 days in filing the reply by the appellants before NCDRC, but on payment of cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only).”
Key Takeaways
- ✓ Judgments that are explicitly stated to operate prospectively cannot be applied to cases where the cause of action arose before the date of the judgment.
- ✓ Courts should consider applications for condonation of delay on their merits if they were filed before a judgment that restricts such condonation prospectively.
- ✓ Minimal delays, especially with valid explanations, can be condoned by the courts, often with the imposition of costs.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the NCDRC to accept the written statement if the cost was paid and to decide the complaint expeditiously, preferably within six months.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that a judgment which is explicitly stated to be prospective in nature cannot be applied retrospectively, and any application which was filed before the said judgment needs to be considered on its own merits. This case reinforces the principle of prospective application of law and clarifies the applicability of the Constitution Bench judgment in New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the NCDRC’s order. The Court condoned the 7-day delay in filing the written statement, emphasizing the prospective nature of the Constitution Bench judgment and the need to consider the merits of applications filed before that judgment. The decision highlights the importance of adhering to the principles of prospective application of law and ensuring that procedural technicalities do not hinder the cause of justice.