VIBHA BAKSHI GOKHALE & ANR. versus M/S. GRUHASHILP CONSTRUCTIONS & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 8 S.C.R. 709 · Decided: 10-05-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, HEMANT GUPTA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
709
VIBHA BAKSHI GOKHALE & ANR.
v.
M/S. GRUHASHILP CONSTRUCTIONS & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 4767 of  2019)
MAY 10, 2019
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Consumer Protection Act, 1986: Deficiency of service –
Dispute pertained to a residential flat which was allegedly booked
by the appellant – Appellant filed complaint before National
Commission in 2016 – On 1611.2018, National Commission passed
order granting last opportunity  to file rejoinder and evidence – By
impugned order, National commission dismissed the complaint
observing that the complainant was granted last opportunity to file
rejoinder and evidence which he failed to do may be for the reason
that the complainant may not have any merit in his case – On appeal,
held: The purpose for setting up the National Commission was to
protect the rights of consumers to seek access to justice under the
Consumer Protection Act – In the instant case, there was a conditional
order dated 16.11.2018 requiring the appellants to file a rejoinder
and evidence within a period of four weeks, failing which the
complaint would be dismissed automatically – On 15.2.2019, the
National Commission declined to grant any further time to the
appellants and, proceeded to observe that there was a delay in filing
a rejoinder and evidence and that it was perhaps because the
appellants did not have any merit in the case – This inference was
unwarranted – The ground for rejection of the complaint was
technical and in disregard of the requirements of substantial justice
– Orders of such nature detract from the true purpose for which the
Commission was established – Such dismissals only add to the burden
of litigation and defeat the purpose of ensuring justice in the
consumer fora – Though the Act stipulates a period for disposing
of a consumer complaint, it is also a sobering reflection that
complaints cannot be disposed of due to non-availability of
resources and infrastructure – In this background, it is harsh to
   [2019] 8 S.C.R. 709
709
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
710
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 8 S.C.R.
penalise a bona fide litigant for marginal delays that may occur in
the judicial process – Impugned order of the National Commission
dated 15.2.2019 and Consumer Complaint is restored to the file of
the National Commission.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4767
of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.02.2019 of the National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in CC/1432/2016.
Saurabh Jain, P. K. Goswami, S. P. Singh Rathore, Ashok K.
Sharma, Uday Prakash Yadav, Ms. Anuradha Soni Verma, Shryansh
Aggarwal, Rajesh Goyal, H. Arjun and P. K. Jain, Advs. for the
Appellants.
The following Order of the Court was passed:
O R D E R
1. The appellants have filed a complaint before the National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission1, complaining of a deficiency
of service on the part of the respondents.  The dispute pertains to a
residential flat, which was allegedly booked by the appellants.  On 15
February 2019, the NCDRC dismissed the complaint, in terms of the
following directions:
“Learned counsel for the complainant states that further time
may be provided to him for filing the rejoinder and evidence in the
matter.  This consumer complaint is of 2016.  The last order dated
16.11.2018, reads as under:
“Complainant has not filed the rejoinder.  Proxy counsel is
present on behalf of the main counsel for the complainant.
Last opportunity is granted to the complainant to file the
rejoinder and evidence within a period of four weeks, failing
which the complaint shall stand dismissed automatically.”
In spite of the above order the complainant has not been able
to file the rejoinder and affidavit of evidence.  It seems that the
complainant may not be having any merit in his case that is why
there has been delay in filing rejoinder and evidence.
1 “NCDRC”
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
711
As per the order dated 16.11.2018, the matter already stands
dismissed and, therefore, no further opportunity can be provided
for filing the rejoinder and evidence.  Accordingly, the file be
consigned to record room.”
2. We find that the ground for rejection of the complaint is technical
and in disregard of the requirements of substantial justice.  The purpose
which Parliament sought to achieve by setting up the NCDRC is to
protect the rights of consumers to seek access to justice under the
Consumer Protection Act 1986.  In the present case, there was a
conditional order dated 

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