Supreme Court allows filing of written statement in consumer case: Ricardo Constructions vs. Ravi Kuckian (2024)

Date of the Judgment: September 6, 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 715

Judges: J.K. Maheshwari, J. and Rajesh Bindal, J.

Can a consumer court deny a defendant the chance to present their case simply because they didn’t file a written statement on time? The Supreme Court of India recently tackled this issue, focusing on whether a copy of the complaint must be provided to the defendant for the limitation period to start. This case revolves around a dispute where the defendant’s right to file a written statement was denied by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal, examined the procedural fairness of this denial.

Case Background

The case originated from a consumer complaint filed by Ravi Kuckian and others (respondent Nos. 1 to 31) against Ricardo Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (the appellant) before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). The complainants alleged deficiencies in service by the appellant. The appellant’s counsel appeared in court on February 6, 2024, and accepted notice. However, the appellant claimed they did not receive a copy of the complaint and hence could not file their written statement within the stipulated time. The NCDRC, on July 19, 2024, foreclosed the appellant’s right to file a written statement, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) initially granted the appellant 30 days to file a written statement after the counsel appeared on February 6, 2024. However, the appellant failed to file the written statement within this time. On July 19, 2024, the NCDRC foreclosed the appellant’s right to file the written statement, stating that the appellant was attempting to delay the proceedings. The NCDRC then gave the complainants six weeks to file their affidavit of evidence and set the next hearing date for January 9, 2025. This order was challenged by the appellant before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, specifically concerning the time limit for filing a written statement by the opposite party in a consumer dispute. The Supreme Court referred to Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which deals with the procedure for handling complaints. The court noted that the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 are in line with the 1986 Act. The court also referred to its earlier decision in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited [(2020) 5 SCC 757], which clarified that the 30-day limitation period for filing a written statement begins from the date of receipt of the notice *accompanied with the complaint*, not merely from the date of receipt of the notice.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that they did not receive a copy of the complaint.
• The counsel for the appellant only appeared in court on February 6, 2024, after seeing the matter on the cause list.
• The appellant contended that the 30-day period for filing a written statement should not start until a copy of the complaint is provided.
• The appellant relied on the Constitution Bench judgment in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited [(2020) 5 SCC 757], which held that the limitation period for filing a written statement starts from the date of receipt of the notice *accompanied with the complaint*.
• The appellant argued that there was no intention to delay the proceedings, as the counsel appeared on the first date of hearing.
• The appellant requested an opportunity to file a written statement, stating that the complainants would still have sufficient time to file a rejoinder and affidavit of evidence before the next hearing date.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the NCDRC was correct in foreclosing the appellant’s right to file a written statement.
• They submitted that the appellant had more than 45 days from the date of acceptance of notice to file the written statement.
• The respondents relied on the judgment in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited [(2020) 5 SCC 757], stating that a maximum of 45 days can be granted to the opposite party to file the written statement.
• The respondents argued that it was the appellant’s responsibility to obtain a copy of the complaint from the complainant’s counsel if they had not received it.
• The respondents contended that the appellant was attempting to delay the proceedings.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) was correct in foreclosing the right of the appellant to file a written statement.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• New India Assurance Company Limited v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited [(2020) 5 SCC 757] – Supreme Court of India. This case was relied upon by both the appellant and the respondent. The court reiterated that the 30-day limitation period for filing a written statement starts from the date of receipt of the notice accompanied by the complaint.
• Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – The court examined this section which deals with the procedure for handling complaints, especially the time frame for filing a written statement.
• Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – The court noted that the provisions of the 2019 Act are in line with the 1986 Act.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court followed the ruling in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited [(2020) 5 SCC 757], emphasizing that the limitation period for filing a written statement starts from the date of receipt of the notice accompanied by the complaint.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of procedural fairness and the right of the defendant to be heard. The court noted that the appellant’s counsel appeared on the first date of hearing and that there was no evidence of an attempt to delay the proceedings. The court also highlighted that the appellant did not receive a copy of the complaint, which is a crucial document for preparing a written statement. The court was of the view that it would be too harsh to foreclose the appellant’s right to file a written statement merely on conjectures and surmises. The court was also conscious that if some reasonable time is granted to the appellant to file the written statement, the pleadings would be complete before the next date of hearing and that the complainants would still have sufficient time to file a rejoinder and affidavit of evidence before the next hearing date.

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court considered the argument that the appellant’s counsel had appeared in court on the first date of hearing and accepted notice. The court also considered that the appellant’s counsel had not been served with a copy of the complaint. The court noted that the limitation period for filing a written statement starts from the date of receipt of the notice accompanied by the complaint. The court also considered that the complainants would still have sufficient time to file a rejoinder and affidavit of evidence before the next hearing date. Based on these considerations, the court held that the NCDRC was incorrect in foreclosing the right of the appellant to file a written statement.

The court rejected the argument that the appellant was attempting to delay the proceedings, noting that the appellant’s counsel appeared on the first date of hearing. The court also rejected the argument that the appellant had more than 45 days from the date of acceptance of notice to file the written statement, clarifying that the 45-day period is calculated from the date of receipt of the notice *accompanied by the complaint*.

The Supreme Court’s decision was unanimous, with both Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal agreeing on the judgment. There were no dissenting opinions. The court’s decision was based on the principle of procedural fairness and the right of the defendant to be heard. The court also emphasized that the limitation period for filing a written statement starts from the date of receipt of the notice accompanied by the complaint.

“The argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that copy of the complaint was not served upon him.”

“The Constitution Bench of this Court in New India Assurance Company Limited’s case (supra) considered one of the questions as to what would be the commencing point of limitation of 30 days under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and opined that the commencing point of limitation of 30 days would be from the date of receipt of the notice accompanied with the complaint by the opposite party and not on mere receipt of the notice of the complaint.”

“Therefore, it may be too harsh to foreclose anyone’s right to file written statement merely on conjectures and surmises.”

Key Takeaways

• The limitation period for filing a written statement in a consumer dispute starts from the date of receipt of the notice *accompanied by the complaint*.
• Consumer courts should ensure that a copy of the complaint is served to the opposite party before the limitation period for filing a written statement starts.
• Foreclosing the right to file a written statement should not be done on mere conjectures and surmises.
• Procedural fairness and the right to be heard are paramount in consumer disputes.
• Courts should provide a reasonable opportunity to the parties to present their case.

Directions

The Supreme Court gave the following directions:

• The appellant is permitted to file a written statement on or before October 14, 2024.
• The respondents/complainants are at liberty to file a replication, if any, by November 6, 2024.
• The respondents/complainants are to file the affidavit of evidence on or before December 9, 2024.
• The matter shall remain fixed on January 9, 2025, for the purpose already mentioned.
• The appellant is permitted to file written statement subject to payment of costs of ₹1,00,000/- each to respondent Nos.1 to 31/complainants.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the limitation period for filing a written statement in a consumer dispute starts from the date of receipt of the notice accompanied by the complaint. This clarifies the position of law that the mere receipt of notice is not sufficient to start the limitation period. This judgment reinforces the principle of procedural fairness and ensures that defendants are given a fair opportunity to present their case.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by Ricardo Constructions Pvt. Ltd., setting aside the NCDRC’s order that had foreclosed the appellant’s right to file a written statement. The court emphasized that the limitation period for filing a written statement starts from the date of receipt of the notice accompanied by the complaint. This decision ensures procedural fairness and provides the appellant with an opportunity to present their case. The court also directed the appellant to pay costs of ₹1,00,000/- each to the respondents/complainants.

Category

Parent Category: Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Child Category: Section 13, Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Parent Category: Consumer Protection Act, 2019

Child Category: Consumer Dispute, Written Statement, Limitation Period

FAQ

Q: What does this judgment mean for consumers?
A: This judgment ensures that consumers receive a copy of the complaint before the limitation period for filing a written statement starts. This protects the rights of the consumer and ensures procedural fairness.

Q: What does this judgment mean for businesses?
A: Businesses must ensure that they provide a copy of the complaint to the opposite party along with the notice. This will ensure that the limitation period for filing a written statement starts correctly.

Q: What is the limitation period for filing a written statement in a consumer dispute?
A: The limitation period is 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice accompanied by the complaint. The court may extend this period by a maximum of 15 days.

Q: What happens if a copy of the complaint is not served?
A: If a copy of the complaint is not served, the limitation period for filing a written statement does not start. The defendant cannot be penalized for not filing the written statement within the stipulated time.

Q: What should I do if I have not received a copy of the complaint?
A: If you have not received a copy of the complaint, you should inform the court and the complainant. You can also request a copy of the complaint from the complainant’s counsel.