DIAMOND EXPORTS & ANR. versus UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 9 S.C.R. 993 · Decided: 14-12-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
993
   [2021] 9 S.C.R. 993
993
DIAMOND EXPORTS & ANR.
v.
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 7546 of 2021)
DECEMBER 14, 2021
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, SURYA KANT
AND VIKRAM NATH, JJ.]
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s.13(2) – Limitation period
under – Vide order dtd.25.02.20, National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission (NCDRC) condoned the delay of 100 days
in filing respondent’s written statement, subject to cost –
Subsequently, Constitution Bench of Supreme Court vide judgment
dtd.04.03.20 in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Hilli
Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited held that the limitation
period u/s.13(2) could not be extended beyond the statutorily
prescribed period of 45 days – On appeal, held: Judgment of the
Constitution Bench in New India Assurance Company Limited was
given prospective effect – It did not make a distinction between
applications for condonation which were decided and those which
were pending on the date of the decision – Thus, decision in Daddy’s
Builders Private Limited v. Manisha Bhargava (rendered after the
judgment of the Constitution Bench) would not affect applications
for condonation pending or decided before 04.03.20 – Further,
orders of Supreme Court in Reliance General Insurance Company
Limited v. Mampee Timbers and Hardwares Private Limited and in
Bhasin Infotech and Infrastructure Private Limited v. Grand Venezia
Buyers Association (Bhasin Infotech-2018) recognized an element of
discretion pending the reference before the Constitution Bench – In
the present case, before the decision of the Constitution Bench, the
delay was condoned by the NCDRC by furnishing reasons for the
exercise of such discretion – No case for interference is made in the
order of NCDRC allowing the application for condonation of delay
on merits – Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 2015 – Insolvency
and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In Reliance General Insurance Company Limited
v. Mampee Timbers and Hardwares Private Limited, a two-Judge
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
994
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
Bench of this Court had, on 10 February 2017, issued directions
to the consumer fora as regards applications for condonation
during the pendency of the reference to the Constitution Bench
in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Hilli Multipurpose
Cold Storage Private Limited. Similarly, during the pendency of
the reference to the Constitution Bench, on 11 February 2016, a
two-judge Bench of this Court in Bhasin Infotech and Infrastructure
Private Limited v. Grand Venezia Buyers Association [Bhasin
Infotech-2018] had permitted parties to file written statements
beyond the prescribed limitation period, subject to payment of
appropriate costs. [Para 10][1000-C, E]
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Mampee
Timbers and Hardwares Private Limited (2021) 3 SCC
673: 2021 (2 ) SCALE 451; Bhasin Infotech and
Infrastructure Private Limited v. Grand Venezia Buyers
Association (2018) 17 SCC 255 – relied on.
New India Assurance Company Limited v. Hilli
Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited (2020) 5 SCC
757: 2020 AIR 1267 – referred to.
1.2 In Daddy’s Builders Private Limited v. Manisha Bhargava
(Two-Judge Bench decision rendered on 11 February 2021 after
the judgment of the Constitution Bench in New India Assurance
Company Limited), this Court refused to interfere in a decision
of the NCDRC which had affirmed the judgment of the SCDRC
rejecting the application for condonation. The application for
condonation had not been entertained on merits. However, there
are observations in Daddy’s Builders, based on the decision of
the Constitution Bench, which state that a delay beyond the outer
limit prescribed by Section 13 could not have been condoned.
While this is the position which emerges from the decision of the
Constitution Bench, the decision has been made prospective. In
Daddy’s Builders the application for condonation had been filed
before the decision of the Constitution Bench and had been
rejected on merits. The observations in Daddy’s Builders were
not necessary for its decision since, even on merits, no case for
condonation had been found by the NCDRC in that case. This
Court in Daddy’s Builders after noticing the decision in Reliance
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
995
General Insurance Company held that it left the discretion to be
exercised by the fora during the pendency of the reference to
the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.