Date of the Judgment: 17 December 2020
Citation: 2020 INSC 949
Judges: Justice Vineet Saran and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat
Can a delay in filing a written statement in a consumer case be excused due to the COVID-19 pandemic? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case, focusing on the extension of limitation periods during the pandemic. The core issue was whether the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) was correct in refusing to accept a written statement filed after the prescribed 45-day period, given the Supreme Court’s suo moto extension of limitation. This judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justice Vineet Saran and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, clarifies the applicability of the Supreme Court’s extension orders to consumer cases.
Case Background
The case involves several appeals filed by M/s. SS Group Pvt. Ltd. (the appellant), a builder, against orders of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). The respondents, who had booked flats with the appellant, filed consumer complaints seeking refunds due to alleged delays in delivery. The NCDRC issued notices in June 2020, which were received by the appellant on 13 July 2020.
According to Section 38(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, a written statement must be filed within 30 days, with a possible extension of 15 days. The initial 30-day period expired on 12 August 2020, and the extended 15-day period ended on 27 August 2020. The appellant filed their written statement on 31 August 2020, which was beyond the 45-day limit. The NCDRC refused to take the written statement on record, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (P) Ltd., (2020) 5 SCC 757, which held that consumer courts cannot extend the time for filing responses beyond 45 days.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| June 2020 | Notices issued by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) to the appellant. |
| 13 July 2020 | Appellant received the notices from NCDRC. |
| 12 August 2020 | Initial 30-day period for filing written statement expired. |
| 27 August 2020 | Extended 15-day period for filing written statement expired. |
| 31 August 2020 | Appellant filed the written statement with NCDRC. |
| 7 September 2020 | NCDRC declined to take the written statement on record. |
| 17 December 2020 | Supreme Court of India allowed the appeals. |
Course of Proceedings
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) declined to accept the written statement filed by the appellant because it was submitted beyond the 45-day limit prescribed under Section 38 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (P) Ltd., (2020) 5 SCC 757. The NCDRC held that it had no power to extend the time for filing a response beyond 45 days. The appellant then challenged this decision before the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The case primarily revolves around Section 38(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which stipulates the time frame for filing a written statement. It states:
“38. Procedure on admission of complaint.—(1) The District Commission shall, on the admission of a complaint, if it is satisfied that the complaint complies with the provisions of this Act, refer a copy of the complaint to the opposite party mentioned in the complaint directing him to give his version of the case within a period of thirty days or such extended period not exceeding fifteen days as may be granted by it.”
The Supreme Court also considered its order dated 23 March 2020, in SMW(C) No. 3 of 2020, titled “In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation,” which extended limitation periods due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The relevant part of the order states:
“…it is hereby ordered that a period of limitation in all such proceedings, irrespective of the limitation prescribed under the general law or Special Laws whether condonable or not shall stand extended w.e.f. 15th March 2020 till further order/s to be passed by this Court in present proceedings.”
The Supreme Court clarified that this order was issued under Article 142 read with Article 141 of the Constitution of India, making it binding on all courts, tribunals, and authorities.
Arguments
The appellant argued that the delay in filing the written statement should be excused because the Supreme Court’s order dated 23 March 2020, which extended limitation periods due to the COVID-19 pandemic, was in effect during the period when the written statement was due. The appellant contended that this order applied to all proceedings, including those before the NCDRC, and thus, the delay of four days should be condoned.
The respondents, on the other hand, did not file a counter-affidavit and submitted that the appeals be disposed of.
| Submission | Appellant’s Sub-Submissions | Respondent’s Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|---|
| Delay in Filing Written Statement |
✓ The delay was due to the Supreme Court’s order extending limitation periods during the COVID-19 pandemic. ✓ The order applied to all proceedings, including those before the NCDRC. |
✓ The respondents did not file a counter-affidavit and submitted that the appeals be disposed of. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:
- Whether the limitation period for filing a written statement before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) should be deemed to have been extended due to the Supreme Court’s order dated 23 March 2020, which extended limitation periods due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | How the Court Dealt with It |
|---|---|
| Whether the limitation period for filing a written statement before the NCDRC should be deemed to have been extended due to the Supreme Court’s order dated 23 March 2020 | The Court held that the limitation period was indeed extended by the Supreme Court’s order dated 23 March 2020, which applied to all proceedings. Therefore, the delay of four days in filing the written statement was allowed. |
Authorities
The court considered the following authorities:
- New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (P) Ltd., (2020) 5 SCC 757, Supreme Court of India: This case established that the Consumer Court has no power to extend the time for filing a response to a complaint beyond 45 days.
- Order dated 23.03.2020 in SMW(C) No.3 of 2020, “In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation”, Supreme Court of India: This order extended the period of limitation in all proceedings due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
| Authority | Court | How it was Considered |
|---|---|---|
| New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (P) Ltd., (2020) 5 SCC 757 | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished. The court acknowledged the ruling but clarified that the COVID-19 extension order took precedence in this case. |
| Order dated 23.03.2020 in SMW(C) No.3 of 2020, “In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation” | Supreme Court of India | Applied. The court relied on this order to extend the limitation period for filing the written statement. |
Judgment
| Submission | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| The delay in filing the written statement should be excused because of the Supreme Court’s order extending limitation periods due to COVID-19. | The court accepted this submission, holding that the Supreme Court’s order dated 23 March 2020, extended the limitation period for all proceedings, including those before the NCDRC. |
| Authority | How it was viewed by the Court |
|---|---|
| New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (P) Ltd., (2020) 5 SCC 757 | The court acknowledged this authority, which stated that the Consumer Court has no power to extend the time for filing a response to a complaint beyond 45 days. However, the court distinguished this case by stating that the COVID-19 extension order took precedence. |
| Order dated 23.03.2020 in SMW(C) No.3 of 2020, “In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation” | The court relied on this order to extend the limitation period for filing the written statement, noting that it applied to all proceedings. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure that the extension of limitation granted due to the COVID-19 pandemic was effectively applied across all judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings. The court emphasized that the order dated 23 March 2020, was intended to provide relief to litigants facing difficulties due to the pandemic and that this relief should not be denied based on technicalities. The court’s reasoning focused on the inclusive nature of the extension order, which was explicitly meant to apply to “all proceedings.”
| Sentiment Analysis of Reasons | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Importance of the Supreme Court’s order dated 23 March 2020 | 40% |
| Ensuring relief to litigants during the pandemic | 30% |
| Inclusive nature of the extension order | 30% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 20% |
| Law | 80% |
The Court’s decision was more inclined towards the legal principle of extending limitation due to the pandemic, rather than the specific facts of the case. The extension order was a legal instrument designed to address a specific situation, and the court focused on its applicability.
The Supreme Court reasoned that the order dated 23 March 2020, was intended to apply to all proceedings, including those before the National Commission. It stated, “In view of the aforesaid, in our opinion, the limitation for filing the written statement in the present proceedings before the National Commission would be deemed to have been extended as it is clear from the order dated 23.03.2020 that the extended period of limitation was applicable to all petitions/ applications/suits/appeals and all other proceedings.” The court also noted that, “the period expired when the order dated 23.03.2020 passed by this Court in SMW(C) No.3 of 2020 was continuing.” Therefore, the court concluded that, “the delay of four days in filing the written statements in the pending proceedings before the National Commission deserves to be allowed, and is accordingly allowed.”
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court’s order dated 23 March 2020, extending limitation periods due to COVID-19, applies to all proceedings, including those before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC).
- Delays in filing written statements in consumer cases, if occurring during the period of extended limitation, can be excused.
- The decision underscores the importance of adhering to the spirit of the Supreme Court’s orders aimed at providing relief during the pandemic.
Directions
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the order of the National Commission, and directed that:
- The written statement filed by the appellant shall be taken on record.
- The matter shall thereafter be proceeded with expeditiously and in accordance with law.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Supreme Court’s order extending limitation periods due to the COVID-19 pandemic applies to all proceedings, including those before consumer courts. This clarifies the scope of the extension order and ensures that litigants are not penalized for delays caused by the pandemic.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in M/s. SS Group Pvt. Ltd. vs. Aaditiya J. Garg clarifies that the extension of limitation periods due to the COVID-19 pandemic applies to all proceedings, including those before the NCDRC. The court allowed the appellant’s delayed written statement, emphasizing the need to adhere to the spirit of the extension order. This decision ensures that litigants are not penalized for delays caused by the pandemic, and it provides a clear legal precedent for similar cases.