New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.

Judges: Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M.R. Shah and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ.

Facts:

The constitution bench, comprising five judges, in present case, was called upon through a reference order made, firstly, in the case of M/s. Bhasin Infotech and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Grand Venezia Buyers Association (Reg) by a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court, and then subsequently by another Division Bench in NIA v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.

The reference, as aforesaid, relates to the grant of time for filing response to a complaint under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter, 'CPA').

Issues:

(i) Whether the District Forum has power to extend the time for filing the response beyond the period of 15 days, in addition to 30 days, as provided under Section 13(2)(a) of the CPA?

(ii) What would be the commencing point of limitation of 30 days stipulated under Section 13(2)(a) of the CPA?

Laws:

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 13(2)(a) - Power of the District Forum to direct opposite party to give his version of the case within a period of thirty days or such extended period not exceeding fifteen days.

Contentions:

Petitioners

(i) Copy of the complaint which is to be sent to the opposite party, is to be with the direction to give his version of (or response to) the case (or complaint) within a period of 30 days.

(ii) Such period of 30 days can be extended by the District Forum, but not beyond 15 days.

(iii) District Forum is to provide speedy disposal of consumer disputes.

(iv) Section 13 of the CPA clearly contemplates where time can be extended by the District Forum, and where it is not to be extended.

Respondent

(i) By not leaving discretion with the District Forum for extending the period of limitation for filing the response before it by the opposite party, grave injustice would be caused.

(ii) There could be circumstances beyond the control of the opposite party because of which the opposite party may not be able to file the response within the period of 30 days or the extended period of 15 days.

(iii) Language of Section 13(2) of CPA is pari materia to Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). If time can be extended for filing of written submission in a suit under CPC, the same would apply to the filing of response to complaint under the CPA as well. Hence, the provision of Section 13(2)(a) of CPA would be directory and not mandatory.

Analysis:

Time for filing the response to the consumer complaint - Whether can be extended by District Forum

I. For consumer cases, the time provided under Section 13(2)(a) of CPA has to be read as mandatory, and not directory.

II. Consequences are provided for not filing the response to the complaint within the time specified. It is further provided that proceedings complying with the procedure laid down under Sections 13(1) and (2) of CPA shall not be called in question in any Court on the ground that the principles of natural justice have not been complied with.

III. The intention of the legislature is absolutely clear that the provision of Section 13(2)(a) of CPA in specifying the time limit for filing the response to the complaint is mandatory, and not directory.

IV. After noticing that there were delays in deciding the complaints by the District Forum, the legislature inserted Sub-section (3A) in Section 13 of CPA providing for a time limit for deciding the complaints.

V. The intention of the legislature was, and has always been, for expeditious disposal of the complaints. By providing for extension of time for disposal of the cases filed, for reasons to be recorded, the legislature has provided for discretion to the Forum that wherever necessary, the extension of the time can be provided for.

VI. Where such further extension is not to be granted [as in the case of Section 13(2)(a)], the legislature has consciously not provided for the same, so as to achieve the object of CPA.

VII. The natural conclusion is that the District Forum has no power to extend the time for filing the response to the complaint beyond the period of 15 days in addition to 30 days as is envisaged under Section 13 of CPA.

Mandatory nature of the provision - Views expressed in case of Dr. J.J. Merchant

I. Time limit prescribed for filing the response to the complaint under CPA, as provided under Section 13(2)(a), is to be strictly adhered.

II. The provision is mandatory, and not directory.

III. For having speedy trial, the legislative mandate of not giving more than 45 days in submitting the written statement or the version of the case is required to be adhered to. If this is not adhered to, the legislative mandate of disposing of the cases within three or five months would be defeated.

Section 13 of CPA - Commencing point of limitation of 30 days

I. Sections 13(2)(a) and (2)(b) of CPA specify that it is the copy of the complaint which is to given to the opposite party directing him to give his version of the case within a period of 30 days or such extended period, not exceeding 15 days. It is the copy of the admitted complaint which is to be served, after which the period to file the response would commence.Regulation 10 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 also specifies the procedure of issuing notice, which should be accompanied by copy of the complaint. The same would also make it clear that it is on service of a copy of the complaint that the period of limitation for filing the response by the opposite party shall commence.

II. Wherever limitation is provided, either for filing response/written statement or filing an appeal, only after serving the copy of the plaint or the order/award on the party concerned, period of limitation would commence. Therefore, commencing point of limitation of 30 days, would be from the date of receipt of notice accompanied by a copy of the complaint, and not merely receipt of the notice. This is so because the response has to be given, within the stipulated time, to the averments made in the complaint and unless a copy of the complaint is served on the opposite party, he would not be in a position to furnish its reply.

Conclusions:

I. District Forum has no power to extend the time for filing the response to the complaint beyond the period of 15 days in addition to 30 days as is envisaged under Section 13 of CPA.

II. Commencing point of limitation of 30 days under Section 13 of the CPA would be from the date of receipt of the notice accompanied with the complaint by the opposite party, and not mere receipt of the notice of the complaint.

Important Precedents:

(i) J.J. Merchant and Ors. v. Shrinath Chaturvedi MANU/SC/0668/2002

(ii) Topline Shoes Ltd. v. Corporation Bank MANU/SC/0558/2002