Supreme Court on Consumer Complaint Dismissal for Technical Reasons: Vibha Bakshi Gokhale vs. Gruhashilp Constructions (2019)

Date of the Judgment: May 10, 2019

Citation: 2019 INSC 480

Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J. and Hemant Gupta, J.

Can a consumer complaint be dismissed merely on technical grounds, disregarding the merits of the case? The Supreme Court addressed this critical question in a recent judgment, emphasizing the importance of substantial justice over procedural technicalities in consumer disputes. This case highlights the need for consumer forums to prioritize the rights of consumers and ensure that justice is not denied due to minor procedural lapses. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising of Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J. and Hemant Gupta, J.

Case Background

The appellants, Vibha Bakshi Gokhale and another, filed a complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) alleging a deficiency of service by the respondents, M/s Gruhashilp Constructions and others, concerning a residential flat booking. The NCDRC dismissed the complaint on February 15, 2019, citing the appellants’ failure to file a rejoinder and evidence within the stipulated time.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The NCDRC, on November 16, 2018, had given a final opportunity to the appellants to file their rejoinder and evidence within four weeks. The order stated that failure to comply would result in automatic dismissal of the complaint. On February 15, 2019, the NCDRC dismissed the complaint, noting the appellants had not filed the required documents and inferred a lack of merit in their case due to the delay. The Supreme Court, however, found this dismissal to be based on a technicality and in disregard of substantial justice, leading to the appeal.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court referred to the Consumer Protection Act 1986, emphasizing the purpose of the Act was to protect the rights of consumers. The court noted that the NCDRC was established to provide consumers with access to justice. The court observed that while the Act stipulates a period for disposing of consumer complaints, it is also important to consider the practical difficulties and infrastructure limitations that can cause delays. The court did not specifically refer to any section of the Act.

Arguments

The appellants argued that the NCDRC’s dismissal of their complaint was based on a mere technicality and that the delay in filing the rejoinder and evidence was not intentional. They contended that the NCDRC should have considered the merits of their case instead of dismissing it on procedural grounds. The appellants also stated that their rejoinder and affidavit of evidence were ready for submission.

The respondents did not appear before the Supreme Court, and thus, no arguments were presented on their behalf.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame any issues. However, the core issue before the court was:

1. Whether the NCDRC was justified in dismissing the consumer complaint on technical grounds due to the delay in filing the rejoinder and evidence.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not refer to any specific case laws or books in this judgment. The court primarily relied on the purpose of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and the need to ensure substantial justice.

Judgment

The Supreme Court set aside the NCDRC’s order dated February 15, 2019, and restored Consumer Complaint No. 1432 of 2016 to the file of the NCDRC. The Court directed the NCDRC to take the appellants’ rejoinder and affidavit of evidence on record. The Supreme Court emphasized that consumer forums should not dismiss complaints on technicalities, especially when the delay is marginal and the purpose of ensuring justice is paramount.

Authorities and their treatment by the Court:

The court did not refer to any specific case laws. The Court relied on the principles of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 to hold that the NCDRC should not dismiss cases on technicalities.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with ensuring that the purpose of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, which is to protect the rights of consumers, was upheld. The Court emphasized that consumer forums should not dismiss complaints on technicalities, especially when the delay is marginal and the purpose of ensuring justice is paramount. The Court was also concerned that the NCDRC had inferred a lack of merit in the case due to the delay in filing rejoinder and evidence, which was unwarranted. The court noted that such dismissals add to the burden of litigation and defeat the purpose of ensuring justice in consumer fora.

The court’s reasoning was driven by the need to ensure that consumer rights are protected and that cases are decided on their merits rather than on procedural technicalities. The court emphasized that the consumer fora should bear in mind that the ends of justice are not defeated due to marginal delays.

The court rejected the NCDRC’s interpretation that the delay in filing the rejoinder and evidence indicated a lack of merit in the case. The court emphasized that such inferences were unwarranted and that the NCDRC should have considered the merits of the case. The court also noted that the NCDRC had failed to consider the practical difficulties and infrastructure limitations that can cause delays in the judicial process.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment of NCDRC:

“Learned counsel for the complainant states that further time may be provided to him for filing the rejoinder and evidence in the matter. This consumer complaint is of 2016. The last order dated 16.11.2018, reads as under: “Complainant has not filed the rejoinder. Proxy counsel is present on behalf of the main counsel for the complainant. Last opportunity is granted to the complainant to file the rejoinder and evidence within a period of four weeks, failing which the complaint shall stand dismissed automatically.” In spite of the above order the complainant has not been able to file the rejoinder and affidavit of evidence. It seems that the complainant may not be having any merit in his case that is why there has been delay in filing rejoinder and evidence. As per the order dated 16.11.2018, the matter already stands dismissed and, therefore, no further opportunity can be provided for filing the rejoinder and evidence. Accordingly, the file be consigned to record room.”

The Supreme Court observed:

“We are affirmatively of the view that orders of this nature detract from the true purpose for which the NCDRC has been established. The NCDRC should have borne this in mind instead of rejecting the complaint on a technicality. Such dismissals only add to the burden of litigation and defeat the purpose of ensuring justice in the consumer fora.”

The Supreme Court further observed:

“In this background, it is harsh to penalise a bona fide litigant for marginal delays that may occur in the judicial process. The consumer fora should bear this in mind so that the ends of justice are not defeated.”

Key Takeaways

• Consumer forums should prioritize substantial justice over technicalities.
• Marginal delays in filing documents should not lead to the dismissal of consumer complaints.
• The purpose of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 is to protect consumer rights and ensure access to justice.
• Consumer forums should consider the merits of the case instead of dismissing it on procedural grounds.
• Inferences about the merits of a case should not be made based on delays in filing documents.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the NCDRC to take the appellants’ rejoinder and affidavit of evidence on record and proceed with the case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that consumer complaints should not be dismissed on technical grounds, especially when the delay is marginal. This case reinforces the principle that consumer forums should prioritize substantial justice and the protection of consumer rights over strict adherence to procedural rules. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Vibha Bakshi Gokhale vs. M/s Gruhashilp Constructions emphasizes that consumer forums must prioritize the rights of consumers and ensure that justice is not denied due to minor procedural lapses. The judgment sets a precedent that consumer complaints should be decided on their merits and not dismissed on technicalities, especially when the delay is marginal. This ruling reinforces the purpose of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and ensures that consumers have access to justice.