Supreme Court of India
DR. VIJAY DIXIT & ORS.versusPAGADAL KRISHNA MOHAN & ORS.
- Citation
- 2024 INSC 627
- Decided
- 22 August 2024
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- BELA M TRIVEDI
Holding
Applications for condonation of delay filed before 04‑03‑2020 must be decided on merits and cannot be summarily dismissed; the NCDRC orders forfeiting the right to file written statements are set aside.
Summary
The Supreme Court examined two civil appeals arising from NCDRC orders that barred the appellants from filing written statements because they missed the statutory 30‑day period under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In both cases the appellants had filed their written statements together with applications for condonation of delay well after the deadline. The Court considered whether the prospective operation of the Constitution Bench’s decision in New India Assurance 2 (2020) and the three‑judge Bench’s ruling in Diamond Exports (2022) required such pre‑March‑2020 applications to be decided on merits rather than dismissed summarily. It held that the earlier decisions settled the issue, mandating that applications for condonation of delay filed before 4 March 2020 must be heard on their merits. Consequently, the NCDRC orders forfeiting the right to file written statements were set aside and the NCDRC was directed to adjudicate the condonation applications on merits. Both appeals were allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether applications seeking condonation of delay filed before 04‑03‑2020 must be decided on merits or can be summarily dismissed.
- Whether the prospective operation of New India Assurance 2 (2020) applies to such applications.
- Interpretation of Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 regarding the filing of written statements and condonation of delay.
Legislation cited
- Consumer Protection Act, 1986s. 13, s. 23, s. 64
Subjects
Section 13 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986Written StatementDelayCondonation of delayCondonation of delay to file written statement
Judgment
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 768 : 2024 INSC 627
Dr. Vijay Dixit & Ors.
v.
Pagadal Krishna Mohan & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 1970 of 2020)
&
New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
v.
Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 10941-10942 of 2013)
22 August 2024
[Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the application(s) seeking condonation of delay to
file written statement preferred before the consumer fora prior
to 04.03.2020 i.e., the date of pronouncement of New India
Assurance 2, must be decided on merits; and ought not to be
summarily dismissed.
Headnotes†
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s.13 – Statutory period to
file written statement – Condonation of delay to file written
statement – In the both civil appeals (C.A.No.1970 of 2020
and C.A.No.10941-10942 of 2013), the NCDRC closed the right
from filing written statements on account of them exceeding
the statutory period:
Held: In C.A. No.1970 of 2020, the appellants had to file its WS
on or before 28.06.2015 (within a period of 30 days) – However,
the appellant filed its WS together with an application seeking
condonation of delay on 12.04.2016 before the NCDRC i.e.,
after a delay of 285 days beyond the 30 day period granted to
appellant – In C.A.No.10941-10942 of 2013, the appellant company
filed its WS together with an application seeking condonation of
delay on 27.07.2013 before the NCDRC i.e., after a delay of 79
days beyond the 30 day period – In the both civil appeals, the
* Author
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 769
Dr. Vijay Dixit & Ors. v. Pagadal Krishna Mohan & Ors.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.
NCDRC forfeited the right from filing written statements on account
of them exceeding the statutory period – In the present situation,
the undisputed facts of the cases reveal that the impugned orders
were passed by the NCDRC on 22.07.2016 (in Civil Appeal No.
1970 of 2020) and on 22.08.2013 (in C.A. No. 10941-10942 of
2013) i.e., prior to 04.03.2020-the date of pronouncement of the
decision in New India Assurance 2 by the Constitution Bench – In
the considered opinion of this Court, the categorical observation(s)
of the Constitution Bench in New India Assurance 2; coupled with
the finding(s) of a Bench of 3 Judges of this Court in Diamond
Exports have authoritatively brought quietus to the underlying
issue – The application(s) seeking condonation of delay preferred
before the consumer fora prior to 04.03.2020 i.e., the date of
pronouncement of New India Assurance 2, must be decided on
merits; and ought not to be summarily dismissed – Accordingly
in both the civil appeals, the NCDRC directed to adjudicate the
underlying application seeking condonation of delay in filing the
WS in the Underlying Complaint on merits. [In C.A. No.1970 of
2020, Paras 2.3, 2.4, 4 and 5] [In C.A. No.10941-10942 of 2013,
Paras 2.3, 4 and 5]
Case Law Cited
In Civil Appeal No. 1970 of 2020
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage
(P) Ltd.,(New India Assurance 2) [2020] 5 SCR 429 : (2020) 5
SCC 757 – followed.
Diamond Exports v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [2021] 9 SCR
993 : (2022) 4 SCC 169 – relied on.
J.J. Merchant (Dr) v. Shrinath Chaturvedi [2002] Supp. 1 SCR
469 : (2002) 6 SCC 635; Kailash v. Nanhku [2005] 3 SCR 289 :
(2005) 4 SCC 344; Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of
India [2005] Supp. 1 SCR 929 : (2005) 6 SCC 344; New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (P) Ltd.,(New
India Assurance 1) [2015] 14 SCR 179 : (2015) 16 SCC 20 ;
Topline Shoes Limited v. Corporation Bank [2002] 3 SCR 1167 :
(2002) 6 SCC 33; Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mampee
Timbers & Hardwares (P) Ltd. (2021) 3 SCC 673; Daddy’s Builders
(P) Ltd. v. Manisha Bhargava [2021] 1 SCR 548 : (2021) 3 SCC
669 – referred to.
770 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
In Civil Appeal No(s). 10941-10942 of 2013
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage
(P) Ltd.,(New India Assurance 2) [2020] 5 SCR 429 : (2020) 5
SCC 757 – followed.
Diamond Exports v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [2021] 9 SCR
993 : (2022) 4 SCC 169 – relied on.
J.J. Merchant (Dr) v. Shrinath Chaturvedi [2002] Supp. 1 SCR
469 : (2002) 6 SCC 635; Kailash v. Nanhku [2005] 3 SCR 289 :
(2005) 4 SCC 344; Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union
of India [2005] Supp. 1 SCR 929 : (2005) 6 SCC 344; Topline
Shoes Limited v. Corporation Bank [2002] 3 SCR 1167 : (2002)
6 SCC 33; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose
Cold Storage (P) Ltd.,(New India Assurance 1) [2015] 14 SCR
179 : (2015) 16 SCC 20; Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
v. Mampee Timbers & Hardwares (P) Ltd. (2021) 3 SCC 673;
Daddy’s Builders (P) Ltd. v. Manisha Bhargava [2021] 1 SCR
548 – referred to.
List of Acts
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
List of Keywords
Section 13 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Written Statement;
Delay; Condonation of delay; Condonation of delay to file written
statement.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
1. Civil Appeal No. 1970 of 2020
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.07.2016 of the National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Consumer Complaint
No.280 of 2015
And
2. Civil Appeal Nos. 10941-10942 of 2013
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 771
Dr. Vijay Dixit & Ors. v. Pagadal Krishna Mohan & Ors.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.08.2013 of the National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Consumer Complaint
No.52 of 2013
Appearances for Parties
Ms. Manjeet Chawla, Vishnu Mehra, Mrs. K.Radha, K.Maruthi Rao,
Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, Advs. for the Appellants.
Uday Gupta, Sr. Adv., Hiren Dasan, Narayan Chandra Das, Ms.
Shivani M. Lal, Harish Dasan, Rajiv Ranjan, Ms. Yogamaya M.g.,
Mohammad Akbar Khan, M. T. George, Mrs. Susy Abraham, Johns
George, Umesh Kumar Khaitan, Rahul Gupta, N. Rajaraman, Rajesh
Kumar Gupta, Advs. for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment#
Satish Chandra Sharma, J.
1. This appeal arises from an order dated 22.07.2016 in Consumer
Complaint No. 280 of 2015 (hereinafter the “Impugned
Order”), wherein the National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission(herein after referred to as the“NCDRC”) forfeited the
right of the Appellant(s)to file its written statement on account of
the Appellant(s) lapse in conforming to statutory period prescribed
for filing its written statement, under Section 13 of the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986 (the “Act”).
2. The facts and proceedings germane to the contextual understanding
of the present lis are as follows:
2.1. The Respondent(s) filed a Consumer Complaint No. 280
of 2015 before the NCDRC on 12.05.2015, claiming a total
amount of INR 47,36,25,000 (Indian Rupees Forty Seven
Crore Thirty Six Lakh Twenty Five Thousand) as compensation
on account of inter alia the death of his wife due to alleged
medical negligence; and adoption of unfair trade practices by
the Petitioner(s) herein whilst conducting a left thoracotomy
# Ed. Note: Judgment in Dr. Vijay Dixit & Ors. v. Pagadal Krishna Mohan & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 1970
of 2020)
772 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
i.e., mediastinal tumour excision under general anaesthesia
(the “Underlying Complaint”).
2.2. In this context, vide an order dated 14.05.2015, the NCDRC
issued notice to the opposite party i.e., the Appellants herein.
2.3. The Notice was received by the Appellant(s) on 27.05.2015;
and accordingly, the Appellant(s) ought to have filed its’ WS
within a period of 30 (thirty) days thereafter i.e., on or before
28.06.2015. However, the Appellant(s) filed its WS together
with an application seeking condonation of delay on 12.04.2016
before the NCDRC i.e., after a delay of 285 (two hundred
eighty-five) days beyond the 30 (thirty) day period granted
to Appellant(s).
2.4. Vide the Impugned Order, the NCDRC closed the right of the
Appellant(s) from filing their written statement on account of
them exceeding the statutory period prescribed for filing such
written statement, under Section 13 of the Act.
2.5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the Appellant(s) preferred the
Special Leave Petition No. 36048 of 2016 i.e., now converted
to this instant appeal.
2.6. Vide an order dated 16.12.2016, this Court issued notice in
the instant appeal; and directed the Appellant(s) to pay a sum
of INR 50,000 (Indian Rupees Fifty Thousand) as costs to
the Respondent(s) pursuant to which upon receiving consent
from the Respondents herein, the NCDRC was at liberty to
proceed with the adjudication of the Underlying Complaint.
Alternatively, the Respondents herein were free to seek a
stay of proceeding(s) before the NCDRC pending disposal
of the instant appeal.
2.7. Vide an order dated 01.11.2017, on account of the non-
acceptance of the aforesaid cost(s) by the Respondents herein,
the NCDRC kept further proceeding(s) in abeyance in terms
of the order dated 16.12.2016 passed by this Court.
2.8. In the interregnum, a co-ordinate bench of this Court, noticed
a conflict of opinion(s) in inter alia New India Assurance Co.
Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (P) Ltd., (2015) 16
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 773
Dr. Vijay Dixit & Ors. v. Pagadal Krishna Mohan & Ors.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.
SCC 20 (“New India Assurance 1”); J.J. Merchant (Dr) v.
Shrinath Chaturvedi,(2002)6 SCC 635; Kailash v. Nanhku,
(2005) 4 SCC 480; Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union
of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344; and Topline Shoes Limited v.
Corporation Bank, (2002) 6 SCC 33, and accordingly, placed
similarly placed appeal(s) before a Constitution Bench of this
Court vide an order dated 30.10.2017,with a view to bring a
sense of finality vis-à-vis the manner of operation of Section
13 of the Act (the “Constitution Bench”) .
2.9. Pertinently, the Constitution Bench vide its decision in New
India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage
(P) Ltd., (2020) 5 SCC 757 (hereinafter “New India Assurance
2”) categorically observed that the rigours of Section 13 of
the Act needed to be complied with mandatorily; however,
on account of various conflicting decision(s) of this Court,
the Constitution Bench clarified that New India Assurance 2
(Supra) would operate prospectively.
2.10.Pertinently, during the pendency of New India Assurance 2
(Supra), a Division Bench of this Court in Reliance General
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mampee Timbers & Hardwares (P)
Ltd., (2021) 3 SCC 673 held that the consumer fora were
permitted to accept written statements beyond the stipulated
maximum 45 (forty- five) day period in an appropriate case
on suitable terms. This position was followed by this Court
pursuant to the New India Assurance 2 (Supra) in respect
of application(s) seeking condonation of delay in filing the
written statements/reply that either had been decided or were
pending prior to 04.03.2020 i.e., the date of pronouncement
of New India Assurance 2 (Supra).1
2.11. Despite the aforesaid, a divergent view came to be taken by
a Division Bench of this Court in Daddy’s Builders (A) Ltd.
v. Manisha Bhargava,(2021) 3 SCC 669 observed as under:
“7. As observed by the National Commission that
despite sufficient time granted the written statement
1 Refer: A. Suresh Kumar v. Amit Agarwal, (2021) 7 SCC 466; and Bhasin Infotech & Infrastructure (P) Ltd.
v. Neema Agarwal, (2021) 18 SCC 301
774 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
was not filed within the prescribed period of limitation.
Therefore, the National Commission has considered
the aspect of condonation of delay on merits also.
In any case, in view of the earlier decision of this
Court in J.J. Merchant [J.J. Merchant v. Shrinath
Chaturvedi, (2002) 6 SCC 635] and the subsequent
authoritative decision of the Constitution Bench
of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (P) Ltd. [New
India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose
Cold Storage(P) Ltd., (2020) 5 SCC 757:(2020) 3
SCC(Civ) 338] , Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction
and/or power to accept the written statement beyond
the period of 45 days, we see no reason to interfere
with the impugned order [Daddy’s Builders (P) Ltd.
v. Manisha Bhargava, 2020 SCC OnLine NCDRC
697] passed by the learned National Commission.”
2.12.In this context, a 3 Judge Bench of this Court in Diamond
Exports v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2022) 4 SCC
169 were tasked with inter alia reconciling and authoritatively
settling the divergent views taken by this Court in respect of
underlying complaint(s) either pending or instituted prior to
04.03.2020 i.e., the date of pronouncement of New India
Assurance 2 (Supra). Thus, in this context, this Court in
Diamond Exports (Supra) categorically held that Daddy’s
Builders(P) Ltd. (Supra) would not affect applications seeking
condonation of delay that were pending or decided on or
before 04.03.2020, and accordingly,such application(s)seeking
condonation of delay would be entitled to the benefit granted
by this Court in Mampee Timbers (Supra). The relevant
paragraph is reproduced as under:
“24….Thus, the decision in Daddy’s Builders
[Daddy’s Builders (P) Ltd. v. Manisha Bhargava,
(2021) 3 SCC 669 : (2021) 2 SCC (Civ) 319]
would not affect applications that were pending
or decided before 4-3-2020. Such applications for
condonation would been titled to the benefit ofthe
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 775
Dr. Vijay Dixit & Ors. v. Pagadal Krishna Mohan & Ors.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.
position in Mampee Timbers & Hardwares [Reliance
General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mampee Timbers &
Hardwares (P) Ltd.,(2021) 3 SCC 673 : (2021) 2
SCC (Civ) 323] which directed Consumer Fora to
render a decision on merits. We have expounded on
the above principles in order to adopt a bright-line
standard which obviates uncertainty on the legal
position before the Consumer Fora and obviates
further litigation.”
3. Turning to the issue at hand, the undisputed fact(s) of the
present lis reveal that the Impugned Order was passed by the
NCDRC on 22.07.2016 i.e., prior to 04.03.2020 the date of
pronouncement of the decision in New India Assurance 2 (Supra)
by the Constitution Bench. Accordingly, in this background it was
contended by the Appellant(s) that on account of the prospective
operation of the said decision, coupled with the observations
of this Court in Diamond Exports (Supra), the instant appeal ought
to be allowed with a direction to the NCDRC to render a decision
on merits qua the underlying application seeking condonation of
delay in filing the WS.
4. In the considered opinion of this Court, the categorical observation(s)
of the Constitution Bench in New India Assurance 2 (Supra);
coupled with the finding(s) of a Bench of 3 Judges of this Court
in Diamond Exports (Supra) have authoritatively brought
quietus to the underlying issue. The application(s) seeking
condonation of delay preferred before the consumer fora prior
to 04.03.2020 i.e., the date of pronouncement of New India
Assurance 2 (Supra), must be decided on merits; and ought not
to be summarily dismissed.
5. Accordingly, on an overall consideration, we are convinced that the
Impugned Order be set aside; and the instant appeal be allowed.
The NCDRC is directed to adjudicate the underlying application
seeking condonation of delay in filing the WS in the Underlying
Complaint on merits.
6. The appeal is accordingly allowed. Pending application(s), if any,
stand disposed of. No order as to cost(s).
776 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Judgment£
Satish Chandra Sharma, J.
1. These appeal(s) arise from (i) an order dated 22.08.2013 in
Consumer Complaint No. 52 of 2013, wherein the National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the
“NCDRC”) forfeited the right of the Appellant Company to file its
written statement on account of the Appellant Company’s lapse
in conforming to statutory period prescribed for filing its written
statement, under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
(the“Act”); and (ii) an order dated 30.09.2013 wherein the NCDRC
dismissed the Review Application bearing number 309 of 2013 filed
against the aforementioned order dated 22.08.2013 (hereinafter (a)
the order dated 22.08.2013; and (b) the order dated 30.09.2013,
shall collectively be referred to as the “Impugned Order”).
2. The facts and proceedings germane to the contextual understanding
of the present lis are as follows:
2.1. The Respondent filed a Consumer Complaint No. 52 of 2013
before the NCDRC on 27.02.2013, vis-à-vis the repudiation of
claim made on the strength of 4 (four) insurance policies availed
from the Appellant Company. Pertinently, the underlying claim
emanated from losses arising out of an incident of ‘sprouting
of potatoes’ that took place at the factory of the Respondent
(the “Underlying Complaint”).
2.2. In this context, vide an order dated 08.03.2013, the NCDRC
issued notice to the opposite party i.e., the Appellant Company
herein, and directed it to file its written submission (“WS”) in
response to the Underlying Complaint within 30 (thirty) days
from the receipt of notice under Section 13 of the Act.
2.3. Notice was received by the Appellant Company on 19.03.2013;
and accordingly, the Appellant Company ought to have filed its’
WS within a period of 30 (thirty) days there after. However, the
Appellant Company filed its WS together with an application
£ Ed. Note: Judgment in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (Civil
Appeal No(s). 10941-10942 of 2013)
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 777
Dr. Vijay Dixit & Ors. v. Pagadal Krishna Mohan & Ors.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.
seeking condonation of delay on 23.07.2013 before the NCDRC
i.e., after a delay of 79 (seventy-nine) days beyond the 30
(thirty) day period granted to Appellant Company.
2.4. Vide the Impugned Order, the NCDRC forfeited the right of the
Appellant Company from filing its written statement on account
of a contravention of the statutory period prescribed for filing
such written statement, under Section 13 of the Act.
2.5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the Appellant Company preferred
the instant appeal under Section 23 of the Act.
2.6. Vide an order dated 29.11.2013 this Court (i) admitted the
underlying appeal(s) and took note of the difference of opinion
inter se co-ordinate benches of this Court in J.J. Merchant
(Dr) v. Shrinath Chaturvedi, (2002) 6 SCC 635 and Kailash
v. Nanhku, (2005) 4 SCC 480 vis- à-vis limitation period for
filing of a written statement under Section 13 of the Act; (ii)
directed the Appellant to a sum of INR 45,00,000 (Indian
Rupees Forty Five Lakh) i.e., the damage amount assessed by
a surveyor under Section 64 UM of the Act, towards the claim
of the Respondent (the “Subject Amount”); and (iii) stayed
the operation of the Impugned Order.
2.7. Accordingly, incompliance with the aforesaid order, the Appellant
Company deposited the Subject Amount before the Registry
of this Court.
2.8. Thereafter, the instant appeal together with several similarly
placed appeal(s) were placed for consideration before a Bench
comprising of 3 Judges of this Court. The said Bench vide their
decision in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose
Cold Storage (P) Ltd., (2015) 16 SCC 20 (hereinafter “New
India Assurance 1”) held that the rigours of Section 13 of the
Act were mandatory and accordingly, observed that the law laid
down by this Court in J.J. Merchant (Supra) would prevail.
2.9. Subsequently, a co-ordinate bench of this Court, noticed a
conflict of opinion(s) in inter alia New India Assurance 1
(Supra); J.J. Merchant (Supra); Kailash (Supra); Salem
Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC
778 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
344; and Topline Shoes Limited v. Corporation Bank, (2002)
6 SCC 33, and accordingly, referred the matter to Hon’ble the
Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders. In this context,
vide an order dated 30.10.2017, the instant appeal came to
be placed before a Constitution Bench of this Court, with a
view to bring a sense of finality vis-à-vis the underlying legal
question vis-à-vis the manner of operation of Section 13 of the
Act (the “Constitution Bench”). Pertinently, the Constitution
Bench vide its decision in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v.
Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (A) Ltd., (2020) 5 SCC 757
(hereinafter “New India Assurance 2”) categorically observed
that the rigours of Section 13 of the Act needed to be complied
with mandatorily; however, on account of various conflicting
decision(s) of this Court, the Constitution Bench clarified that
New India Assurance 2 (Supra) would operate prospectively.
2.10. Pertinently, during the pendency of New India Assurance 2
(Supra), a Division Bench of this Court in Reliance General
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mampee Timbers & Hardwares (P)
Ltd., (2021) 3 SCC 673 held that the consumer fora were
permitted to accept written statements beyond the stipulated
maximum 45 (forty-five) day period in an appropriate case
on suitable terms. This position was followed by this Court
pursuant to the New India Assurance 2 (Supra) in respect of
application(s)seeking condonation of delay in filing the written
statements/reply that either had been decided or were pending
prior to 04.03.2020 i.e., the date of pronouncement of New
India Assurance 2 (Supra).1
2.11. Despite the aforesaid, a divergent view came to be taken by
a Division Bench of this Court in Daddy’s Builders (A) Ltd.
v. Manisha Bhargava, (2021) 3 SCC 669 observed as under:
“7. As observed by the National Commission that
despite sufficient time granted the written statement
was not filed within the prescribed period of limitation.
1 Refer: A. Suresh Kumar v. Amit Agarwal, (2021)7 SCC 466; and Bhasin Infotech & Infrastructure (P) Ltd.
v. Neema Agarwal, (2021) 18 SCC 301
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 779
Dr. Vijay Dixit & Ors. v. Pagadal Krishna Mohan & Ors.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.
Therefore, the National Commission has considered
the aspect of condonation of delay on merits also. In
any case,in view of the earlier decision of this Court in
J.J. Merchant [J.J. Merchant v. Shrinath Chaturvedi,
(2002) 6 SCC 635] and the subsequent authoritative
decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose
Cold Storage(P) Ltd. [New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage(P) Ltd., (2020)
5 SCC 757 : (2020) 3 SCC (Civ) 338] , Consumer
Fora have no jurisdiction and/or power to accept the
written statement beyond the period of 45 days, we
see no reason to interfere with the impugned order
[Daddy’s Builders (P) Ltd. v. Manisha Bhargava, 2020
SCC OnLine NCDRC 697] passed by the learned
National Commission.”
2.12. In this context, a 3 Judge Bench of this Court in Diamond
Exports v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2022) 4 SCC 169
were tasked with inter alia reconciling and authoritatively settling
the divergent views taken by this Court in respect of underlying
complaint(s) either pending or instituted prior to 04.03.2020
i.e., the date of pronouncement of New India Assurance 2
(Supra). Thus, in this context, this Court in Diamond Exports
(Supra) categorically held that Daddy’s Builders (P) Ltd.
(Supra) would not affect applications seeking condonation of
delay that were pending or decided on or before 04.03.2020,
and accordingly, such application(s) seeking condonation of
delay would be entitled to the benefit granted by this Court
in Mampee Timbers (Supra). The relevant paragraph is
reproduced as under:
“24….Thus, the decision in Daddy’s Builders [Daddy’s
Builders (P) Ltd. v. Manisha Bhargava, (2021) 3
SCC 669 : (2021) 2 SCC (Civ) 319] would not affect
applications that were pending or decided before
4-3-2020. Such applications for condonation would
be entitled to the benefit of the position in Mampee
Timbers & Hardwares [Reliance General Insurance
780 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Co. Ltd. v. Mampee Timbers & Hardwares (P) Ltd.,
(2021) 3 SCC 673 : (2021) 2 SCC (Civ) 323] which
directed Consumer Fora to render a decision on
merits. We have expounded on the above principles
in order to adopt a bright-line standard which obviates
uncertainty on the legal position before the Consumer
Fora and obviates further litigation.”
3. Turning to the issue at hand, the undisputed fact(s) of the present
lis reveal that the Impugned Order was passed by the NCDRC on
22.08.2013 i.e., prior to 04.03.2020-the date of pronouncement of
the decision in New India Assurance 2 (Supra) by the Constitution
Bench. Accordingly, in this background it was contended by the
Appellant(s) that on account of the prospective operation of the said
decision, coupled with the observations of this Court in Diamond
Exports (Supra), the instant appeal ought to be allowed with a
direction to the NCDRC to render a decision on merits qua the
underlying application seeking condonation of delay in filing the WS.
4. In the considered opinion of this Court, the categorical observation(s)
of the Constitution Bench in New India Assurance 2 (Supra);
coupled with the finding(s) of a Bench of 3 Judges of this Court
in Diamond Exports (Supra) have authoritatively brought quietus
to the underlying issue. The application(s) seeking condonation of
delay preferred before the consumer fora prior to 04.03.2020 i.e., the
date of pronouncement of New India Assurance 2 (Supra), must
be decided on merits; and ought not to be summarily dismissed.
5. Accordingly, on an overall consideration, we are convinced that the
Impugned Order be set aside; and the instant appeal be allowed
with the following directions(s):
5.1. The NCDRC is directed to adjudicate the underlying application
seeking condonation of delay in filing the WS in the Underlying
Complaint on merits; and
5.2. The Registry is directed to transmit the Subject Amount and
all accrued interest thereon to the NCDRC, which in turn shall
deposit the Subject Amount together with all accrued interest
in an interest-bearing fixed deposit account. The aforesaid
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 781
Dr. Vijay Dixit & Ors. v. Pagadal Krishna Mohan & Ors.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.
amount shall remain deposited subject to the final outcome
of the Underlying Complaint before the NCDRC.
6. The appeals are accordingly allowed. Pending application(s), if any,
stand disposed of. No order as to cost(s).
Result of the cases: Appeals allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Section 13 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986"Sign in to search