LEGAL ISSUE: Whether consumer forums have the power to condone delays beyond 45 days for filing written statements.
CASE TYPE: Consumer Law
Case Name: M/s Daddy’s Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Another vs. Manisha Bhargava and Another
Judgment Date: 11 February 2021
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 11 February 2021
Citation: [Not provided in the source]
Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J. and M.R. Shah, J.
Can a consumer forum extend the deadline for a defendant to file their written statement beyond 45 days? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent case, clarifying the strict timelines under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to statutory deadlines in consumer dispute resolution. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M.R. Shah, delivered the judgment.
Case Background
M/s Daddy’s Builders Pvt. Ltd. and another (the Petitioners) filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, challenging the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (National Commission). The National Commission had upheld the order of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (State Commission), which had rejected the Petitioners’ application for condonation of delay in filing their written statement in response to a consumer complaint filed by Manisha Bhargava and another (the Respondents). The Petitioners sought to have the delay condoned and their written statement accepted, despite it being filed beyond the 45-day limit prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 26.09.2018 | State Commission rejected the application for condonation of delay in filing the written statement. |
| 04.09.2020 | National Commission dismissed the appeal, upholding the State Commission’s order. |
| 10.02.2017 | Order in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M/s Mampee Timbers & Hardwares Pvt. Ltd. directing consumer fora to accept written statements beyond 45 days in appropriate cases. |
| 11.02.2021 | Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, upholding the National Commission’s order. |
Course of Proceedings
The State Commission rejected the application for condonation of delay in filing the written statement because it was filed beyond the statutory period of 45 days as prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The National Commission upheld this decision, stating that there was no mandate to condone delays in all cases where the written statement was filed beyond the 45-day limit. The National Commission also noted that the Petitioners had been given sufficient time to file their written statement, but failed to do so within the prescribed period. The Petitioners then approached the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition.
Legal Framework
The core legal issue revolves around Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which stipulates the time limit for filing a written statement in response to a consumer complaint. According to the Act, the written statement must be filed within 30 days, with a possible extension of 15 days, totaling 45 days. The Supreme Court has consistently held that this time limit is mandatory and cannot be extended by the consumer forums.
The relevant portion of Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as discussed in the judgment, mandates that the written version/written statement is required to be filed within 30 days and the same can be extended by a further period of 15 days.
Arguments
The Petitioners argued that the Constitution Bench decision in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited, [(2020) 5 SCC 757], which affirmed the 45-day limit, should apply prospectively and not to cases where the application for condonation of delay was filed before the date of the judgment. They relied on the Supreme Court’s order in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M/s Mampee Timbers & Hardwares Pvt. Ltd. (Diary No. 2365 of 2017 decided on 10.02.2017), which allowed consumer fora to accept written statements beyond 45 days in appropriate cases. The Petitioners contended that the State Commission should have condoned the delay in their case, given the prevailing legal position at the time of their application.
The primary argument of the petitioners was that the judgment in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited, [(2020) 5 SCC 757] was prospective in nature and should not apply to cases where the application for condonation of delay was filed before the said decision. They argued that the State Commission should have followed the order in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M/s Mampee Timbers & Hardwares Pvt. Ltd., (Diary No. 2365 of 2017 decided on 10.02.2017), which allowed for condonation of delay in appropriate cases.
The Supreme Court noted that the order in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M/s Mampee Timbers & Hardwares Pvt. Ltd., (Diary No. 2365 of 2017 decided on 10.02.2017) did not mandate the condonation of delay in all cases, but rather left it to the discretion of the concerned fora to accept the written statement beyond 45 days in appropriate cases.
The Supreme Court also noted that the National Commission had considered the aspect of condonation of delay on merits and found no reason to condone the delay.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Petitioners’ Submission: The decision in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited should apply prospectively. |
✓ The application for condonation of delay was filed before the decision in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited. ✓ The State Commission should have followed the order in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M/s Mampee Timbers & Hardwares Pvt. Ltd.. |
| Respondents’ Submission: (Implicit in the upholding of the lower court’s decision) The 45-day limit is mandatory. |
✓ The State Commission correctly rejected the application as the written statement was filed beyond the 45-day limit. ✓ The order in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M/s Mampee Timbers & Hardwares Pvt. Ltd. did not mandate condonation of delay in all cases. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered the following issue:
- Whether the State Commission had the power to condone the delay beyond 45 days for filing the written statement under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the State Commission had the power to condone the delay beyond 45 days for filing the written statement under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. | No. | The Supreme Court, relying on the Constitution Bench decision in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited, held that consumer fora have no power to extend the time for filing a written statement beyond 45 days. The court clarified that while the Constitution Bench decision was to be applied prospectively, it did not mean that the law prior to the decision was that consumer fora had the power to condone delays beyond 45 days. The court reiterated that the decision in J.J. Merchant v. Shrinath Chaturvedi, [(2002) 6 SCC 635], which held that consumer fora have no power to extend the time for filing a reply/written statement beyond the period prescribed under the Act, was the correct position of law. |
Authorities
| Authority | Court | How it was used | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| J.J. Merchant v. Shrinath Chaturvedi, [(2002) 6 SCC 635] | Supreme Court of India | Reiterated | Consumer fora have no power to extend the time for filing a reply/written statement beyond the period prescribed under the Act. |
| New India Assurance Company Limited v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited, [(2020) 5 SCC 757] | Supreme Court of India | Reiterated | Consumer fora have no power to extend the time for filing a written statement beyond 45 days. |
| Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M/s Mampee Timbers & Hardwares Pvt. Ltd. (Diary No. 2365 of 2017 decided on 10.02.2017) | Supreme Court of India | Explained | The order did not mandate the condonation of delay in all cases, but rather left it to the discretion of the concerned fora to accept the written statement beyond 45 days in appropriate cases. |
| Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 | Statute | Explained | Specifies the time limit for filing a written statement in response to a consumer complaint. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| The decision in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited should apply prospectively. | The Court agreed that the decision was prospective, but clarified that this did not mean that consumer fora had the power to condone delays beyond 45 days before this decision. The court reiterated that the decision in J.J. Merchant v. Shrinath Chaturvedi was the correct position of law. |
| The State Commission should have followed the order in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M/s Mampee Timbers & Hardwares Pvt. Ltd.. | The Court clarified that the order in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M/s Mampee Timbers & Hardwares Pvt. Ltd. did not mandate the condonation of delay in all cases, but rather left it to the discretion of the concerned fora to accept the written statement beyond 45 days in appropriate cases. |
| Authority | How it was viewed by the Court |
|---|---|
| J.J. Merchant v. Shrinath Chaturvedi, [(2002) 6 SCC 635] | The Court reiterated that this decision correctly held that consumer fora have no power to extend the time for filing a reply/written statement beyond the period prescribed under the Act. |
| New India Assurance Company Limited v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited, [(2020) 5 SCC 757] | The Court reiterated that this Constitution Bench decision affirmed that consumer fora have no power to extend the time for filing a written statement beyond 45 days. While the decision was to be applied prospectively, it did not change the fact that the law prior to the decision was that consumer fora had no power to condone delays beyond 45 days. |
| Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M/s Mampee Timbers & Hardwares Pvt. Ltd. (Diary No. 2365 of 2017 decided on 10.02.2017) | The Court explained that this order did not mandate the condonation of delay in all cases, but rather left it to the discretion of the concerned fora to accept the written statement beyond 45 days in appropriate cases. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to uphold the statutory time limits prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and to maintain consistency in the interpretation of the law. The Court emphasized the binding nature of the Constitution Bench decision in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited, which had clarified that consumer fora do not have the power to extend the time for filing a written statement beyond 45 days. The Court also noted that the order in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M/s Mampee Timbers & Hardwares Pvt. Ltd. did not mandate the condonation of delay in all cases, and the National Commission had considered the aspect of condonation of delay on merits.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Upholding Statutory Time Limits | 40% |
| Consistency in Legal Interpretation | 30% |
| Binding Nature of Constitution Bench Decisions | 20% |
| Merit-Based Consideration of Delay | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 20% |
| Law | 80% |
The Court’s reasoning was heavily based on legal precedents and the interpretation of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The factual aspects of the case, such as the specific reasons for the delay, were given less weight compared to the legal principles and statutory requirements.
Logical Reasoning
Judgment
The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, affirming the decisions of the National Commission and the State Commission. The Court held that consumer fora do not have the power to condone delays beyond 45 days for filing a written statement, as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Court clarified that while the decision in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited was to be applied prospectively, it did not mean that the law prior to the decision was that consumer fora had the power to condone delays beyond 45 days. The Court reiterated that the decision in J.J. Merchant v. Shrinath Chaturvedi, which held that consumer fora have no power to extend the time for filing a reply/written statement beyond the period prescribed under the Act, was the correct position of law. The Court also noted that the order in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M/s Mampee Timbers & Hardwares Pvt. Ltd. did not mandate the condonation of delay in all cases, and the National Commission had considered the aspect of condonation of delay on merits.
The Court quoted from the judgment:
“…consumer fora has no jurisdiction and/or power to accept the written statement beyond the period of 45 days…”
“…the said judgment shall be applicable prospectively…”
“…it will be open to the concerned fora to accept the written statement filed beyond the stipulated period of 45 days in an appropriate case, on suitable terms, including the payment of costs and to proceed with the matter.”
Key Takeaways
- ✓ Consumer forums cannot condone delays beyond 45 days for filing written statements.
- ✓ Parties must adhere strictly to the statutory timelines under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
- ✓ The judgment reinforces the importance of timely responses in consumer dispute resolution.
Directions
No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case.
Specific Amendments Analysis
There was no specific amendment discussed in this judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that consumer fora do not have the power to condone delays beyond 45 days for filing a written statement under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This judgment reinforces the established legal position as clarified by the Constitution Bench in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited and reiterates the principle laid down in J.J. Merchant v. Shrinath Chaturvedi. There is no change in the previous position of law.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in M/s Daddy’s Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Another vs. Manisha Bhargava and Another reaffirms the strict 45-day limit for filing written statements in consumer cases. This judgment serves as a reminder for all parties involved in consumer disputes to adhere to statutory timelines, ensuring the efficient and timely resolution of cases.