ASSURANCE CO. LTD. versus HILLI MULTIPURPOSE COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD.

Citation: [2020] 5 S.C.R. 429 · Decided: 04-03-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA · Disposal: Reference answered
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 12 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
429
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
v.
HILLI MULTIPURPOSE COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 10941-10942 of 2013)
MARCH 04, 2020
[ARUN MISHRA, INDIRA BANERJEE,
VINEET SARAN, M. R. SHAH AND
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s. 13(2)(a) – District Forum
to extend the time for filing of response to the complaint beyond the
period of 15 days, in addition to 30 days – Power of – Held: A bare
reading of s. 13(2)(a) of the Act makes it clear that the 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 – It further provides that
such period of 30 days can be extended by the District Forum, but
not beyond 15 days – The legislature in its wisdom has provided for
filing of complaint or appeals beyond the period specified under
the relevant provisions of the Act and Regulations, if there is sufficient
cause given by the party, which has to be to the satisfaction of the
concerned authority – No such discretion has been provided for
u/s. 13(2)(a) of the Act for filing a response to the complaint beyond
the extended period of 45 days (30 days plus 15 days) – By
specifically enacting a provision under sub-section(3) of s. 13 with
a specific clarification that violation of the principles of natural
justice shall not be called in question where the procedure prescribed
under sub-sections (1) and (2) of s. 13 of the Consumer Protection
Act has been followed or complied with, the intention of the
legislature is clear that mere denial of further extension of time for
filing the response (by the opposite party) would not amount to
denial or violation of the principles of natural justice – This provision
of s. 13(3) reinforces the time limit specified in s. 13(2)(a) of the Act
– Therefore, the intention of the legislature is absolutely clear that
the provision of s. 13(2)(a) of the Act in specifying the time limit for
filing the response to the complaint is mandatory, and not directory.
429
[2020] 5 S.C.R. 429
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
430
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 5 S.C.R.
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s. 13(2) – Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 – Or. VIII, r.1 – It was contended that the language
of s. 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act is pari materia to Or.
VIII, r. 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and if time can be
extended for filing of written submissions in a suit under the
aforesaid provision of the Code, the same would apply to the filing
of response to a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act as
well, and hence the provision of s. 13(2)(a) of the Consumer
Protection Act would be directory and not mandatory – Held: It is
noteworthy that Or. VIII, r. 1 r/w. Or. VIII, r. 10 prescribes that the
maximum period of 120 days provided u/or. VIII, r. 1 is actually not
meant to be mandatory but only directory – Or. VIII, r. 10 mandates
that where written statement is not filed within the time provided
u/or. VIII, r. 1 “ The Court shall pronounce the judgment against
him or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit” – It is
clearly indicative of the fact that the discretions is left with the Court
to grant time beyond the maximum period of 120 days, which may
be in exceptional cases – It is pertinent to note that non-filing of
written statement u/or. VIII, r. 1 of the Code is not followed by any
consequence within the time so provided in the Code – Whereas,
sub-section (2)(b)(ii) of s. 13 of the Consumer Protection Act clearly
provides for the consequence of the complaint to be proceeded ex-
parte against the opposite party, if the opposite party omits or fails
to represent his case within the time given – Once consequences are
provided for not filing the response to the complaint within the time
specified, and it is further provided that proceedings complying
with the procedure laid down under sub section (1) and (2) of s. 13
of the Consumer Protection Act shall not be called in question in
any court on the ground that the principles of natural justice have
not been complied with, the intention of the legislature is absolutely
clear that the provisions of s.13(2)(a) of the Act in specifying the
time limit for filing the response to the complaint is mandatory, and
not directory – The provisions of Or.VIII, r.1 of the Code are directory
not mandatory, however, it would not be applicable to cases dealing
with the provisions of s. 13(2) of the Consumer
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.