Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dated 25 February 2020, which condoned a delay of 100 days in filing a written statement by the respondent insurance company in a consumer complaint. The appellants, Diamond Exports and another, had filed a consumer complaint before the NCDRC on 3 December 2018 based on two insurance policies, alleging a fire at their factory. On 6 December 2018, the NCDRC admitted the complaint and issued notice to the opposite parties under Section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, directing them to file written statements within 30 days. The respondent received the summons on 20 May 2019 but filed its written statement on 23 September 2019, along with an application for condonation of delay of 100 days. The NCDRC condoned the delay subject to payment of costs of Rs 50,000. The appellants challenged this order before the Supreme Court, relying on the Constitution Bench judgment in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited, delivered on 4 March 2020, which held that the limitation period under Section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 could not be extended beyond the statutorily prescribed period of 45 days (30 days plus 15 days). The respondent argued that the Constitution Bench judgment was prospective and that prior to it, the law as per Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Mampee Timbers and Hardwares Private Limited allowed consumer fora to accept written statements beyond 45 days on suitable terms. The Supreme Court noted that the NCDRC's order was passed before the Constitution Bench judgment and that the judgment was expressly made prospective. The Court also observed that during the pendency of the reference to the Constitution Bench, two-judge benches had permitted consumer fora to accept written statements beyond 45 days in appropriate cases. The Court held that since the NCDRC exercised its discretion prior to the authoritative ruling, and the delay was occasioned by the respondent filing a criminal case alleging fraud against the second surveyor, there was no reason to interfere with the order. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Consumer Law - Limitation for Written Statement - Section 13(2)(a) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - The District Forum has no power to extend time for filing written statement beyond 30 days plus 15 days as per Section 13; the Constitution Bench in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. held that the outer limit is binding and cannot be extended. (Paras 8-9) B) Consumer Law - Prospective Application of Judgment - The Constitution Bench judgment in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. was directed to operate prospectively; hence, orders passed prior to that judgment condoning delay beyond 45 days are not automatically invalid. (Paras 8-9) C) Consumer Law - Discretion to Condon Delay - Prior to the Constitution Bench judgment, consumer fora had discretion to accept written statements beyond 45 days on suitable terms including costs, as per Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mampee Timbers and Hardwares Pvt. Ltd. and Bhasin Infotech and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Grand Venezia Buyers Association. (Paras 10-11) D) Consumer Law - Interference in Appeal - The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the NCDRC's order condoning delay of 100 days passed on 25 February 2020, before the Constitution Bench judgment of 4 March 2020, as the NCDRC exercised its discretion prior to the authoritative ruling and the delay was occasioned by filing of a criminal case alleging fraud against the surveyor. (Paras 10-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) could condone a delay of 100 days in filing a written statement under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, given the subsequent Constitution Bench judgment holding that no extension beyond 45 days is permissible, and whether the order of condonation passed prior to that judgment should be interfered with.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the NCDRC's order condoning the delay of 100 days, passed on 25 February 2020 prior to the Constitution Bench judgment of 4 March 2020, was valid and not liable to be interfered with. The Court noted that the Constitution Bench judgment was prospective and that prior to it, consumer fora had discretion to accept written statements beyond 45 days on suitable terms including costs.
Law Points
- Limitation period for filing written statement under Section 13 of Consumer Protection Act
- 1986 is 30 days extendable by 15 days
- no further extension
- Constitution Bench judgment in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. operates prospectively
- prior to that judgment
- consumer fora had discretion to accept written statements beyond 45 days on suitable terms including costs.
