LexM/S DADDY’S BUILDERS PVT. LTD. & ANOTHER versus MANISHA BHARGAVA AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 548 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 1 S.C.R. [2021] 1 S.C.R. 548 548 M/S DADDY’S BUILDERS PVT. LTD. & ANOTHER v. MANISHA BHARGAVA AND ANOTHER (Petition For Special Leave To Appeal (Civil) No. 1240 of 2021) FEBRUARY 11, 2021 [DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD AND M.R. SHAH, JJ.] Consumer Protection Act, 1986: s.13 – Power of Consumer Fora to extend the time to file the response to complaint beyond the period of 15 days in addition to 30 days as envisaged under s.13 – Held: Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction and/or power to accept the written statement beyond the period of 45 days. New India Assurance Company Limited v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited (2020) 5 SCC 757 – followed. J.J. Merchant v. Shrinath Chaturvedi (2002) 6 SCC 635 : [2002] 1 Suppl. SCR 469 – relied on. New India Assurance Company Limited v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited (2015) 16 SCC 20; Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M/s Mampee Timbers & Hardwares Pvt. Ltd. 2021 (2) SCALE 451 – referred to. Case Law Reference 2021 (2) SCALE 451 referred to para 3 [2002] 1 Suppl. SCR 469 relied on para 5 (2015) 16 SCC 20 referred to para 5 (2020) 5 SCC 757 followed paras 5 EXTRA-ORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 1240 of 2021. From the Judgment and Order dated 04.09.2020 of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi in First Appeal No. 1999 of 2018 Ashish Choudhary, Shivam Bajaj, Rohit Amit Sthalekar, Advs. for the appearing parties. A B C D E F G H 549 The Order of the Court was passed by M. R. SHAH, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 04.09.2020 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘National Commission’) in First Appeal No. 1999/2018, by which the National Commission has dismissed the said appeal confirming the order passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’) dated 26.09.2018 rejecting the application filed by the petitioners herein seeking condonation of delay in filing the written version/written statement to the consumer complaint, original respondent nos. 1 & 2-petitioners herein have preferred the present special leave petition. 2. By order dated 26.09.2018, the State Commission rejected the application filed by the petitioners herein seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statement/written version to the consumer complaint. It is not in dispute that the written version/written statement was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), i.e., beyond the period of 45 days. It is not in dispute that as per the provisions of the Act, the written version/written statement is required to be filed within 30 days and the same can be extended by a further period of 15 days. The order passed by the State Commission came to be confirmed by the National Commission. Hence, the present special leave petition. 3. Shri Ashish Choudhary, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has vehemently submitted that it is true that as per the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of New India Assurance company Limited v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited, reported in (2020) 5 SCC 757, the District Forum has no power to extend the time to file the response to the complaint beyond the period of 15 days in addition to 30 days as is envisaged under Section 13 of the Act. It is submitted that however as observed in paragraph 63, the said judgment shall be applicable prospectively only. Therefore, it is the case on behalf of the petitioners that the aforesaid decision shall not be applicable retrospectively, and more particularly to the complaints filed before the said decision. It is submitted that in the present case the application for condition of delay came up for consideration before the State Commission on 26.09.2018 and on that date there was a judgment of this Court in the case of Reliance General M/S DADDY’S BUILDERS PVT. LTD. v. MANISHA BHARGAVA AND ANOTHER A B C D E F G H 550 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 1 S.C.R. Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M/s Mampee Timbers & Hardwares Pvt. Ltd. (Diary No. 2365 of 2017 decided on 10.02.2017) directing the consumer fora to accept the written statement beyond the stipulated time of 45 days in an appropriate case, on
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.