LexNEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. versus HILLI MULTIPURPOSE COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 14 S.C.R. 179 NEW INDIAASSURANCE CO. LTD. ' v. HILU MULTIPURPOSE COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD. (Civil Appeal Nos.10941-10942 of 2013) DECEMBER 04, 2015 [ANIL R. DAVE, VIKRAMAJIT SEN AND PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.] A B Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - s. 13(2)( a) - Procedure on admission of complaint - Limitation period for C filing written statement or giving version of the opponent as per the provisions of s. 13(2)( a) - Held: The opposite party is given 30 days time for giving his version and the .said period for filing or giving the version can be extended by the District D Forum, but extension should not exceed 15 days - Three Judge Bench of this Court.in Dr. J.J. Merchant case rightly held that the District Forum can grant a further period of 15 days to the opposite party for filing his version or reply and not beyond that- View expressed in Dr. J.J. Merchant case · E (decided in 2002) holds thefield and prevails over latter view taken in Kailash case (decided in 2005) that the time frame for filing the reply was not mandatory, but merely directory - Not only this three-Judge Bench, but even a Bench of coordinate strength of this Court, which decided the case of F Kail ash, was bound by the view taken by a three-Judge Bench in the case of Dr. J .J. Merchant - Thus, the law laid down in Dr. J.J. Merchant case should prevail. · Dr. J.J. Merchant & Ors. v. Shrinath Chaturvedi c2002) 6 sec 635: 2002 (1) Suppl. scR 469; Kai/ash v. Nanhku & Ors. (2005) 4 SCC 480 : 2005 (3) SCR 289; Topiine Shoes Ltd. v. Corporation Bank (2002) 6 SCC 33 : 2002 (3) SCR 1167; Central Board of Oawoodi Bohra 179 G H 180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14S.C.R. A Community & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 2 sec 673 : 2004 (6) suppl. scR 1054 - referred to. B c Case Law Reference 2002 (1) Suppl. SCA 469 referred to Para 1 2005 (3) SCA 289 referred to Para 1 2002 (3) SCA 1167 referred to Para 12 2004 (6) Suppl. SCA 1054 referred to Para 19 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 10941-10942 of 2013. D From the Judgment and Order dated 30.09.2013 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi in Review Application No. 309 of 2013in Consumer Complaint No. 52 of 2013 E WITH C.A. Nos. 1 0943-1 0944/2013 and 1774/2014 SLP (C) Nos. 2833/2014 and 11257-11258/2014. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv., Vishnu Mehra, Ms. Sakshi Mittal F (For Ms. Manjeet Chawla), K. R. Sasiprabhu, Vishnu Sharma, Somiran Sharma, Biju P. Raman, Sanjoy Kumar Ghosh, Ms. Rupali S. Ghosh (For Snehasish Mukherjee) for Appellant. Uday Gupta, Hiren Dasan, Narayan Chandra Das, G Chand Qureshi (For Mrs. Sarla Chandra), Umesh Kumar Khaitan, Brajesh Kumar Singh, Kedar Nath Tripathy, Su nil Kr. Mund, Sanjeev Joshi, A. K. Mehta, Kuldeep Singh, Santosh Paul, Nitin S. Tambwekar, Seshatalpa Sai Bandaru, Kaushik Poddar, T. V. George, Sayalipso Ray for the Respondent. H NEW INDIAASSURANCE v. HILU MULTIPURPOSE COLD 181 STORAGE The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ANIL R. DAVE, J. 1. While considering Civil Appeal No.D 35086 of 2013, this Court expressed its doubt in relation A to the period of limitation for filing the written statement or giving version of the opponent as per the provisions of Section B 13(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The question was, whether the said issue was governed by the law laid down by this Court in Dr. J.J. Merchant& Ors. v. Shrinath Chaturvedi. [(2002) 6 SCC 635] or Kai/ash v. Nanhku & Ors. [(2005) 4 SCC 480]. The C . following order was passed by this Court in the aforestated Civil Appeal on 29'h November, 2013: "1. Heard Mr. Vahanvati, learned Attorney General, in support of these appeals. Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar, D learned senior counsel, appears for the respondent(s). 2. Learned Attorney General .points out that the judgment in Dr. J.J. Merchand. & Ors. vs. Shrinath Chaturvedi, reported in [2002(6) SCC 635], has been considered and a different view has been taken in E Kailash vs. Nanhku & Ors .. reported in [2005(4) SCC 480], on the issue of limitation. The matters, therefore, require consideration. 3. Delay condoned. F 4. The appeals are admitted. 5. Since this point of law requires to be resolved, we request the Hon'ble the Chief Justice to place these appeals before a larger Bench ..................... " G 2. In the aforestated circumstances, these matters have been pla
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.