Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a decision of the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dated 19th November 2020, which dismissed an interim application by the appellant for filing written submission or reply to a consumer complaint. The respondents had filed a complaint on 15th March 2018 alleging deficiency in service regarding cancellation of allotment of commercial units in a shopping mall. The NCDRC issued notice under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appellants sought time to reply on 18th April 2019 and filed a reply to an application for representative capacity on 23rd December 2019, which was allowed. The Commission directed filing of reply to the amended complaint within 30 days, with the matter adjourned to 21st May 2020. The appellants filed written submission along with an application for condonation of delay of 18 days, though the delay was beyond the prescribed 45-day period under Section 13(2)(a) read with Section 18 of the 1986 Act. The NCDRC rejected the condonation application, relying on the Constitution Bench judgment in New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., which held that consumer fora have no power to extend time for filing reply beyond 45 days. The core legal issue was whether the NCDRC erred in rejecting the condonation application given the prospective operation of the Constitution Bench judgment. The appellants argued that the judgment should not apply to complaints filed before 4th March 2020, as indicated in related cases like Daddy’s Builders Private Limited and Others vs. Manisha Bhargava and Others. The court analyzed the Constitution Bench judgment and its prospective application, noting that in Dr. A. Suresh Kumar & Ors vs. Amit Agarwal, it was held that applications for condonation filed prior to the Constitution Bench judgment must be considered on merits. The court reasoned that since the appellant's application was filed before the Constitution Bench judgment, it should not have been dismissed solely based on that judgment. The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the NCDRC's order and directing it to consider the condonation application on merits, in accordance with the principles established in the cited precedents.
Headnote
A) Consumer Law - Condonation of Delay - Prospective Application of Constitution Bench Judgment - Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Sections 13(2)(a), 18 - Appellant filed written submission with delay beyond 45 days, NCDRC rejected condonation application based on Constitution Bench judgment - Court held that Constitution Bench judgment operates prospectively, so applications for condonation filed prior to it must be considered on merits, not dismissed solely on that basis - Directed NCDRC to consider appellant's application on merits (Paras 6-7). B) Consumer Law - Timeframe for Filing Reply - No Extension Beyond Statutory Period - Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Sections 13(2)(a), 18 - Issue pertained to power of consumer fora to extend time for filing reply beyond 45 days - Constitution Bench in New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. held no such power exists, timeframe is same across all fora under Section 18 - This principle was reiterated and applied in the present case (Paras 2-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) erred in rejecting the appellant's application for condonation of delay in filing written submission to a consumer complaint, in light of the prospective operation of the Constitution Bench judgment in New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed, NCDRC order set aside, directed to consider condonation of delay application on merits
Law Points
- Consumer fora have no power to extend time for filing reply beyond 45 days under Section 13(2)(a) read with Section 18 of the Consumer Protection Act
- 1986
- Constitution Bench judgment in New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. operates prospectively
- applications for condonation of delay filed prior to the Constitution Bench judgment must be considered on merits
