Supreme Court states Consumer Foras can't extend Filing Written Statement Beyond 45 days

Supreme Court states Consumer Foras can't extend Filing Written Statement Beyond 45 days

On 11 February 2021, the Supreme Court of India (SC) dismissed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) seeking condonation of delay in filing a written statement to a consumer complaint while stating that the Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction and/or power to accept the written statement beyond the period of 45 days.

The SC Two-Judges bench headed by Justices Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and MR Shah dismissed the SLP in the case of M/s Daddy's Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (Petitioners) v. Manisha Bahrgava & Anr. (Respondents). The bench upheld the decision of the National Commission and stated that the Consumer Fora does not have the power to grant an extension for filing written statements beyond 45 days.

The summary of the litigation is that an appeal was filed before the SC by the petitioner as they felt dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 4 September 2020 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, that upheld the decision of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (State Commission) dated 26 September 2018 rejecting the application filed by the petitioners.

It was observed by the National Commission that despite sufficient time granted the written statement was not filed within the prescribed period of limitation. It held that "It was left to the concerned fora to accept the written statement beyond the stipulated period of 45 days in an appropriate case."

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that according to the decision of the Apex Court Constitutional Bench in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited, (2020) 5 SCC 757, that the District Forum has no power to extend the time to file the response to the complaint beyond 15 days in addition to 30 days as per Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act (Act). He added that, however, under paragraph 63 of the said judgment mentions that it would be applied prospectively only.

It was further submitted that the said judgment of the Constitutional Bench shall not be applicable in this case as the application for condonation of the delay came up before the Fora on 26 September 2018.

On the same day, the Top Court passed a judgment in Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd v. M/s Mampee Timbers & Hardwares Pvt Ltd, wherein it directed the Consumer Fora to accept the written statement beyond the stipulated time of 45 days in appropriate cases, on suitable terms, including the payment of costs and to proceed with the matter keeping in view the fact that the judgment of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited, reported in (2015) 16 SCC 20 has been referred to a larger Bench.

It was urged that based on the above order of the SC the State Commission ought to have condoned the delay in filing the written statement/written version to the Consumer Complaint.

The Apex Court rejected the contentions of the counsel and stated while dealing with the question as to whether the State Commission has the power to condone the delay beyond 45 days is now not res integra in view of the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2020) 5 SCC 757.

The Court rejected the argument that the judgment would not apply to the instant matter due to its prospective application. It stated that it cannot be accepted as in J.J. Merchant v. Shrinath Chaturvedi, (2002) 6 SCC 635, wherein a three-Judge Bench held that the consumer for a has no power to extend the time for filing a reply/written statement beyond the period prescribed under the Act.

The Court further added that despite the aforesaid three-Judge Bench decision, a contrary view was taken by a two-Judge Bench and therefore, the matter was referred to the five-Judge Bench and the Constitution Bench has reiterated the view taken in the case of J.J. Merchant (supra) and has again reiterated that the consumer fora has no power and/or jurisdiction to accept the written statement beyond the statutory period prescribed under the Act, i.e., 45 days in all.

In the case of Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), it was dealt by the National Commission while deciding the first appeal that there was no mandate that in the cases where the written statement was submitted beyond the stipulated period of 45 days, the delay must be condoned and the written statement must be taken on record.

While dismissing the SLP the SC said, "In any case, in view of the earlier decision of this Court in the case of J.J. Merchant (supra) and the subsequent authoritative decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (2020) 5 SCC 757, consumer fora has no jurisdiction and/or power to accept the written statement beyond the period of 45 days, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned National Commission."