Case Note & Summary
The appellants, Vibha Bakshi Gokhale and another, filed a consumer complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) against M/s Gruhashilp Constructions and others, alleging deficiency of service regarding a residential flat booked by them. The complaint was filed in 2016. On 16 November 2018, the NCDRC granted a last opportunity to the appellants to file a rejoinder and evidence within four weeks, failing which the complaint would stand dismissed automatically. The appellants failed to comply within the stipulated time. On 15 February 2019, the NCDRC dismissed the complaint, observing that the appellants had not filed the rejoinder and evidence, and inferred that the delay indicated a lack of merit in the case. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found that the dismissal was based on a technicality and disregarded the requirements of substantial justice. The Court emphasized that the purpose of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is to protect consumers' rights and ensure access to justice. The Court noted that the NCDRC should have condoned the marginal delay instead of dismissing the complaint, especially given the constraints of resources and infrastructure. The Court also held that the inference of lack of merit was unwarranted. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the NCDRC's order, restored the consumer complaint to its file, and directed that the rejoinder and affidavit of evidence, which were ready, be taken on record. The appeal was disposed of without issuing notice to the respondents.
Headnote
A) Consumer Law - Dismissal on Technicality - Substantial Justice - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 12, 13 - The NCDRC dismissed the complaint for non-filing of rejoinder and evidence as per a conditional order. The Supreme Court held that such dismissal on a mere technicality defeats the purpose of the Act and the NCDRC should have condoned the marginal delay to ensure substantial justice. (Paras 2-4) B) Consumer Law - Condonation of Delay - Marginal Delays - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 12, 13 - The Supreme Court observed that marginal delays in consumer fora should be condoned, especially when the delay is due to non-availability of resources and infrastructure, and penalizing a bona fide litigant for such delays is harsh. (Para 4) C) Consumer Law - Inference of Lack of Merit - Unwarranted Inference - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - The NCDRC inferred that the delay indicated lack of merit in the case. The Supreme Court held this inference unwarranted and that such orders detract from the purpose of the consumer forum. (Para 2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the NCDRC was justified in dismissing a consumer complaint on the ground of failure to file rejoinder and evidence within the stipulated time, despite the complaint being pending since 2016 and the delay being marginal.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the NCDRC dated 15 February 2019 and restored Consumer Complaint No. 1432 of 2016 to the file of the NCDRC. The rejoinder and affidavit of evidence, stated to be ready, were directed to be taken on record. The appeal was disposed of.
Law Points
- Substantial justice over technicalities
- Consumer protection
- Condonation of marginal delays
- Purpose of Consumer Protection Act 1986
