LexRICARDO CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. versus RAVI KUCKIAN & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 638 : 2024 INSC 715 Ricardo Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. Ravi Kuckian & Others (Civil Appeal No. 9958 of 2024) 06 September 2024 [J.K. Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to foreclosing of the right of the opposite party- appellant to file written statement. Headnotes† Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Procedure on admission of complaint – Foreclosing of the right to file written statement – Effect – On facts, in a complaint, National Commission foreclosed the right of the appellant to file written statement and complainants given six weeks to file affidavit of evidence and the matter directed to be listed after five months – Challenge to: Held: Not a case where along with the notice, copy of the complaint was accompanied – Thus, it may be too harsh to foreclose anyone’s right to file written statement merely on conjectures and surmises – Case of the appellant was that the copy of the complaint was not served upon him – Commission had put onus on the appellant to have not made any attempt to get the copy of the complaint – However, the Commission merely recorded in its previous order that the notice was accepted by the counsel for the appellant in Court and was granted time to file the vakalatnama and written statement, however, it did not record that copy of the complaint was supplied by the counsel for the complainants to the counsel for the appellant – Any such observation by the Commission in its order would have clinched the issue – Impugned order passed by the Commission insofar it foreclosed the right of the appellant to file written statement set aside – Appellant permitted to file written statement on or before 14.10.2024 – Complainants allowed to file replication, if any, by 06.11.2024 and affidavit of evidence on or before 09.12.2024 – Matter to remain fixed on 09.01.2025 – Appellant to file written statement subject to payment of costs of ₹1,00,000/- each to complainants – Consumer Protection Act, 1986. [Paras 10, 11] * Author [2024] 9 S.C.R. 639 Ricardo Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. Ravi Kuckian & Others Case Law Cited New India Assurance Company Limited v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited [2020] 5 SCR 429 : (2020) 5 SCC 757 : 2020 INSC 274 – referred to. List of Acts Consumer Protection Act, 2019; Consumer Protection Act, 1986. List of Keywords Foreclosing of the right to file written statement; Affidavit of evidence; Copy of the complaint not served; Grant of time to file vakalatnama and written statement; Conjectures and surmises; Costs. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9958 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 19.07.2024 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Consumer Complaint No. 5 of 2024 Appearances for Parties Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv., Pranjit Bhattacharya, Vaibhav Niti, Ms. Sonam Mhatre, Ms. Raj Sarit Khare, Advs. for the Appellant. Aditya Parolia, Piyush Singh, Akshay Srivastava, Alankrit Bhatnagar, Suryansh Vashisth, Anshul Gupta, Advs. for the Respondents. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Order Rajesh Bindal, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed against the order1 dated 19.07.2024 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,2 New Delhi in a complaint filed by respondent Nos.1 to 31 whereby the right of the appellant to file written statement was foreclosed. The 1 Consumer Complaint No.5 of 2024 2 For short, ‘The Commission’ 640 [2024] 9 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports complainants were given six weeks time to file affidavit of evidence and the matter was directed to be listed on 09.01.2025. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that time as provided in law, was not granted to file the written statement. Hence, the impugned order of the Commission may be set aside and the appellant may be given an opportunity to file written statement. 3. The order passed by the Commission on 06.02.2024 suggests that the counsel, who had appeared on behalf of the appellant was granted time to file vakalatnama. Notice was directed to be issued to the Opposite Party No.2 in the complaint and 30 days’ time was granted to the appellant to file its written statement, whereafter the complainants could file rejoinder and the matter was fixed on 19.07.2024 for the next hearing. As the appellant could not file the written statement within the time granted by the Commission, the right to file
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.