Date of the Judgment: December 6, 2021
Judges: Justice Vineet Saran and Justice Aniruddha Bose
Can a delay in filing a written response to a consumer complaint be excused if the application for condonation of delay was filed before the Supreme Court’s ruling on the matter? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a case concerning the condonation of delay in filing a written statement under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The court had to clarify the prospective application of its earlier judgment on the limitation period for filing responses in consumer cases.
Case Background
The case involves a dispute between Bhasin Infotech and Infrastructure Private Limited (the appellants) and Neema Agarwal & Ors. (the respondents). The respondents filed a consumer complaint on March 15, 2018, alleging deficiency in service related to the cancellation of commercial unit allotments in a shopping mall. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) issued a notice to the appellants under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Initially, the appellants sought time to respond. They later filed a reply to the application to make the complaint in a representative capacity, which was allowed. The NCDRC then directed the appellants to file a reply to the amended complaint within 30 days. The appellants filed their written submission along with a delay condonation application, with the delay exceeding the 45-day limit prescribed under Section 13(2)(a) read with Section 18 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| March 15, 2018 | Respondents filed a consumer complaint. |
| April 18, 2019 | Appellants sought time to reply to the notice. |
| December 23, 2019 | Appellants filed a reply to the application under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. |
| May 21, 2020 | Matter adjourned after the application was allowed. |
| Before May 21, 2020 | Appellants filed written submission with a delay condonation application. |
| November 19, 2020 | NCDRC rejected the appellant’s application for condonation of delay. |
Course of Proceedings
The NCDRC rejected the appellant’s application for condonation of delay, citing the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench decision in New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. [(2020) 5 SCC 757]. This decision held that consumer forums do not have the power to extend the time for filing a response beyond 45 days. The NCDRC’s decision was based on the interpretation that the Constitution Bench judgment applied to all cases, including those where the delay condonation application was pending.
Legal Framework
The case revolves around the interpretation of Section 13(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which stipulates the time limit for filing a response to a complaint, and Section 18 of the same Act, which makes the same time frame applicable to all three consumer forums. The Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench in New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. [(2020) 5 SCC 757] had clarified that consumer forums cannot extend the time for filing a response beyond 45 days. The relevant part of the judgment is as follows:
“41. To conclude, we hold that our answer to the first question is that the District Forum has no power to extend the time for filing the response to the complaint beyond the period of 15 days in addition to 30 days as is envisaged Under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act; and the answer to the second question is that the commencing point of limitation of 30 days Under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act would be from the date of receipt of the notice accompanied with the complaint by the opposite party, and not mere receipt of the notice of the complaint. This Judgment to operate prospectively. The referred questions are answered accordingly.”
The key issue was the meaning of the phrase “This Judgment to operate prospectively.”
Arguments
The appellants argued that the Constitution Bench judgment should not apply to cases where the complaints were filed before March 4, 2020, the date of the judgment. They relied on a previous order of the Supreme Court in Reliance General Insurance Company Limited and Another vs. Mampee Timbers and Hardwares Private Limited and Another [(2021) 3 SCC 673], which allowed consumer forums to accept written statements filed beyond 45 days in appropriate cases, pending the Constitution Bench decision. The appellants contended that the prospective operation of the judgment meant that it should not affect cases where the application for condonation of delay was filed before the judgment date.
The respondents, on the other hand, contended that the Constitution Bench judgment was clear that the delay beyond 45 days cannot be condoned, and that this applied to all cases where the delay was not condoned before the judgment date.
| Submission | Appellant’s Sub-Argument | Respondent’s Sub-Argument |
|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Constitution Bench Judgment | The judgment should not apply to complaints filed before March 4, 2020. | The judgment applies to all cases where delay was not condoned before March 4, 2020. |
| Interpretation of “Prospective Operation” | Prospective operation means the judgment should not affect cases where the application for condonation of delay was filed before the judgment date. | Prospective operation means the judgment applies to all cases where the delay was not condoned before the judgment date. |
| Reliance on Previous Orders | Relied on Reliance General Insurance Company Limited and Another vs. Mampee Timbers and Hardwares Private Limited and Another [(2021) 3 SCC 673] to support the argument that delays could be condoned pending the Constitution Bench decision. | The Constitution Bench judgment overrules any previous orders allowing condonation of delay beyond 45 days. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues in this order. However, the core issue was:
- What is the correct interpretation of the prospective application of the Constitution Bench judgment in New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. [(2020) 5 SCC 757], particularly in relation to pending applications for condonation of delay?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court dealt with the issue
| Issue | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Interpretation of Prospective Application | The Court noted two differing views: one that the judgment applies only to cases where the delay was condoned before March 4, 2020, and another that it covers cases where the application was filed before that date. The Court leaned towards the more liberal view that the prospective operation should cover both sets of cases. |
Authorities
| Authority | Court | How it was considered |
|---|---|---|
| New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. [(2020) 5 SCC 757] | Supreme Court of India | The Constitution Bench judgment which held that consumer forums do not have the power to extend the time for filing a response beyond 45 days. The Court had to clarify the prospective application of this judgment. |
| Reliance General Insurance Company Limited and Another vs. Mampee Timbers and Hardwares Private Limited and Another [(2021) 3 SCC 673] | Supreme Court of India | A Coordinate Bench order that allowed consumer forums to accept written statements filed beyond 45 days in appropriate cases, pending the Constitution Bench decision. This order was used by the appellants to support their argument. |
| Daddy’s Builders Private Limited and Others vs. Manisha Bhargava and Others [(2021) 3 SCC 669] | Supreme Court of India | A Coordinate Bench decision that rejected the argument that the Constitution Bench judgment would not apply to complaints filed before March 4, 2020. The Court noted the differing view taken in this case. |
| Dr. A. Suresh Kumar & Ors vs. Amit Agarwal (In Civil Appeal No. 988 of 2021 decided on 8th July, 2021) | Supreme Court of India | A decision that held that applications for condonation of delay filed before the Constitution Bench judgment should be considered on merits. The Court noted the more liberal approach taken in this case. |
| J.J. Merchant v. Shrinath Chaturvedi [(2002) 6 SCC 635] | Supreme Court of India | A three-judge bench decision that held that consumer forums have no power to extend the time for filing a reply/written statement beyond the period prescribed under the Act. This was reiterated by the Constitution Bench in New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. [(2020) 5 SCC 757]. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court observed that two contrary views had emerged regarding the prospective application of the Constitution Bench judgment. The court noted that in Daddy’s Builders Private Limited (supra), the view was that the prospective operation would apply only in cases where delay stood condoned before 4th March, 2020, whereas in Dr. A. Suresh Kumar (supra), a more liberal approach was taken, holding that the prospective operation covered cases where an application for condonation of delay was filed before the judgment but whose outcome was yet to be determined.
The Court held that the prospective operation of the judgment in New India Assurance Company Limited (supra) should cover both sets of cases: those where the delay was condoned after accepting the application and those where the decision on condonation was pending on March 4, 2020. The court reasoned that it would be an artificial distinction to differentiate between applications decided before March 4, 2020, and those pending on that date.
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Constitution Bench judgment should not apply to complaints filed before March 4, 2020. | The Court did not fully accept this submission but held that the prospective operation should cover cases where the application for condonation of delay was filed before the judgment date. |
| Interpretation of “Prospective Operation” should exclude cases where applications for condonation were pending. | The Court rejected this interpretation and held that the prospective operation should cover cases where the application was pending on the date of the judgment. |
| Reliance on Reliance General Insurance Company Limited and Another vs. Mampee Timbers and Hardwares Private Limited and Another [(2021) 3 SCC 673]. | The Court acknowledged the order but clarified that the final decision on condonation of delay was still subject to the discretion of the consumer fora. |
The Court did not give a final decision on the issue of the prospective application of the Constitution Bench judgment, as two benches of equal strength had taken differing views on the matter. The Court opined that this issue should be decided by a larger bench.
| Authority | Court’s View |
|---|---|
| New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. [(2020) 5 SCC 757] | The Court reaffirmed the ruling that consumer forums cannot extend the time for filing a response beyond 45 days, but clarified the prospective application of the judgment. |
| Reliance General Insurance Company Limited and Another vs. Mampee Timbers and Hardwares Private Limited and Another [(2021) 3 SCC 673] | The Court acknowledged the order and its relevance in the context of pending cases but did not overrule the Constitution Bench judgment. |
| Daddy’s Builders Private Limited and Others vs. Manisha Bhargava and Others [(2021) 3 SCC 669] | The Court noted the differing view taken in this case regarding the prospective operation of the Constitution Bench judgment. |
| Dr. A. Suresh Kumar & Ors vs. Amit Agarwal (In Civil Appeal No. 988 of 2021 decided on 8th July, 2021) | The Court noted the more liberal approach taken in this case, which supported the view that pending applications for condonation of delay should be considered on merits. |
| J.J. Merchant v. Shrinath Chaturvedi [(2002) 6 SCC 635] | The Court reiterated that this case was the basis for the Constitution Bench decision in New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. [(2020) 5 SCC 757]. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s primary concern was to ensure a fair and consistent application of the law, particularly in cases where the parties had acted in good faith. The court emphasized the need to avoid arbitrary distinctions between cases decided before and after the Constitution Bench judgment. The court’s sentiment was towards a more inclusive interpretation of “prospective application,” ensuring that those who had already applied for condonation of delay before the judgment date had their applications considered on merit. The court also took into account the previous order in Reliance General Insurance Company Limited and Another vs. Mampee Timbers and Hardwares Private Limited and Another [(2021) 3 SCC 673], which had allowed for a more flexible approach pending the Constitution Bench decision.
| Reason | Sentiment Analysis | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Fair and Consistent Application of Law | The Court wanted to ensure that the law was applied fairly and consistently to all parties. | 30% |
| Avoidance of Arbitrary Distinctions | The Court sought to avoid creating arbitrary distinctions between cases decided before and after the Constitution Bench judgment. | 25% |
| Good Faith Actions | The Court recognized the need to protect parties who had acted in good faith by applying for condonation of delay. | 20% |
| Inclusive Interpretation of “Prospective Application” | The Court leaned towards a more inclusive interpretation of “prospective application” to protect the rights of those with pending applications. | 15% |
| Consideration of Previous Orders | The Court considered the previous order in Reliance General Insurance Company Limited and Another vs. Mampee Timbers and Hardwares Private Limited and Another [(2021) 3 SCC 673], which had allowed for flexibility. | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Court’s reasoning for the issue of interpretation of “prospective application” is as follows:
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court clarified that the prospective application of the Constitution Bench judgment in New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. [(2020) 5 SCC 757] should cover cases where applications for condonation of delay were pending on March 4, 2020.
- The Court recognized the need to protect the rights of parties who had already filed applications for condonation of delay before the judgment date.
- The issue of the precise scope of the prospective application was referred to a larger bench due to differing views taken by benches of equal strength.
- Consumer forums should consider applications for condonation of delay on their merits if they were filed before March 4, 2020.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the registry to place the order along with the case papers before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions, as the Court felt that the issue of the prospective application of the Constitution Bench judgment should be decided by a larger bench.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the prospective application of the Constitution Bench judgment in New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. [(2020) 5 SCC 757] should cover cases where applications for condonation of delay were pending on March 4, 2020. This clarifies the scope of the earlier judgment and provides a more inclusive approach to the application of the limitation period under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This case does not change the law, but clarifies the scope of the prospective application of the earlier judgment.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s order in Bhasin Infotech vs. Neema Agarwal clarifies the application of the limitation period under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, particularly in relation to the Constitution Bench judgment in New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. [(2020) 5 SCC 757]. The court leaned towards a more inclusive interpretation of “prospective application,” ensuring that those who had already applied for condonation of delay before the judgment date had their applications considered on merit. However, the court referred the issue to a larger bench for a final decision, due to the conflicting views of coordinate benches.