Consumer fora has no power to extend time beyond 45 days for written filing: SC

The Supreme Court has dismissed a petition filed seeking condonation of delay in filing written statement to a consumer complaint while stating that consumer fora has no jurisdiction and/or power to accept the written statement beyond the period of 45 days. 

A two-judge bench headed by the Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Justice M. R. Shah has passed its decision on an appeal filed by a Company seeking condonation of delay in filing a written version/ written statement to a consumer complaint beyond the prescribed period of 45 days. 

The Counsel for the petitioner had vehemently submitted that it is true that as per the decision of the Supreme Court constitution bench in case 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. 

He further submitted that however as observed in paragraph 63, the said judgment shall be applicable prospectively only. Therefore, according to the constitution bench judgment its not applicable to their case as the application for condonation of delay came up before the commission 26.09.2018. On that day, there was a judgment of this court in the case of Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd Vs M/s Mampee Timbers & Hardwares Pvt Ltd (Diary No. 2365 of 2017 decided on 10.12.2017) directing the Consumer Fora to accept the written statement beyond the stipulated time of 45 days in appropriate cases, on suitable terms, including the payment of costs and to proceed with the matter keeping in view the fact that the judgment of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited, reported in (2015) 16 SCC 20 has been referred to a larger Bench. Therefore, State Commission ought to have condoned the delay in filing the written statement/ written version to the Consumer Complaint in view of the above order. 

However, the Supreme Court has rejected the said Contention of the Petitioners Counsel and said so far as the question whether the date on which the State Commission passed the order, then on that date, whether the State Commission has the power to condone the delay beyond 45 days for filing the written statement under Section 13 of the Act is concerned, as such, the said issue whether the State Commission has the power to condone the delay beyond 45 days is now not res integra in view of the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2020) 5 SCC 757. 

The Supreme Court also ruled out the contention of the petitioner that above cited judgment cannot be applicable to his case as it was only to be applicable prospectively. The Supreme Court said, the same cannot be accepted as per the decision of this in the case of J.J. Merchant v. Shrinath Chaturvedi, reported in (2002) 6 SCC 635, wherein a three Judge Bench held, consumer fora has no power to extend the time for filing a reply/written statement beyond the period prescribed under the Act. However, thereafter, despite the above three Judge Bench decision, a contrary view was taken by a two Judge Bench and therefore the matter was referred to the five Judge Bench and the Constitution Bench has reiterated the view taken in the case of J.J.Merchant (supra) and has again reiterated that the consumer fora has no power and/or jurisdiction to accept the written statement beyond the statutory period prescribed under the Act, i.e., 45 days in all. 

The Supreme Court further stated that reliance placed upon the order passed by this Court dated 10.02.2017, in the case of Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. is concerned, the same has been dealt with in detail by the National Commission by the impugned order while deciding the first appeal. 

Also Read: Delhi HC directs to resolve issue of parking, commercial plots, tree plantation and consents to East Kidwai Nagar Redevelopment Project

The Apex Court said, As rightly observed by the National Commission, there was no mandate that in all the cases where the written statement was submitted beyond the stipulated period of 45 days, the delay must be condoned and the written statement must be taken on record. In order dated 10.02.2017, it is specifically mentioned that it will be open to the concerned fora to accept the written statement filed beyond the stipulated period of 45 days in an appropriate case, on suitable terms, including the payment of costs and to proceed with the matter. Therefore, ultimately, it was left to the concerned fora to accept the written statement beyond the stipulated period of 45 days in an appropriate case. As observed by the National Commission that despite sufficient time granted the written statement was not filed within the prescribed period of limitation.

Read the judgment here;