RICARDO CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.versusRAVI KUCKIAN & OTHERS

                  [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 the same was foreclosed.
4.     The argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is
       that copy of the complaint was not supplied to the counsel of the
       appellant, hence, written statement could not be filed within the time
       granted. He further submits that the counsel had put in appearance
       merely, seeing the matter in the cause list on 06.02.2024, and had
       sought time to file the written statement. The copy of the complaint
       was not handed over to him. The service of notice on the appellant
       was not done by the process of the court. In the absence of a copy
       of the complaint, it was not possible for the appellant to file its written
       statement. Reliance has been placed on the Constitution Bench
       judgment of this Court in New India Assurance Company Limited
       v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited3 to support the
       arguments raised by the appellant.
5.     It was further urged that there is no cause on the part of the appellant
       to delay the proceedings. Counsel for the appellant accepted notice
       in the complaint on the very first date of hearing i.e. 06.02.2024,
       otherwise notice on that day was issued to the opposite party No. 2
       and matter was listed for further orders/directions on 19.07.2024. Even
       after foreclosing the right of the appellant to file the written statement
       on 19.07.2024 and granting six weeks’ time to the complainants to



3    2020 INSC 274 : [2020] 5 SCR 429 : (2020) 5 SCC 757
[2024] 9 S.C.R.                                                         641

       Ricardo Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. Ravi Kuckian & Others


     file affidavit of evidence, the next date of hearing was fixed more than
     five months thereafter. In such circumstances if opportunity is granted
     to the appellant to file its written statement, he shall file the same
     without delay and the complainants thereafter would have sufficient
     time to file rejoinder and also affidavit of evidence, much before the
     next date of hearing on 09.01.2025 as fixed by the Commission.
6.   On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1
     to 31/complainants before the Commission, submitted that in view
     of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of this Court in New India
     Assurance Company Limited’s case (supra), a maximum period of
     45 days’ can be granted to opposite party to file the written statement
     and the Commission had rightly foreclosed the right of the appellant
     to file the written statement as from the date of acceptance of notice,
     more than 45 days had expired. The written statement had not yet
     been filed. It was the duty of the appellant to have asked for a copy
     of the complaint from the counsel for the complainant, in case it
     was not received or supplied. The appellant merely wants to delay
     the proceedings.
7.   We have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the
     relevant referred record.
8.   It is evident from the impugned order that in the complaint filed by
     the respondent Nos.1 to 31, notice was issued on 06.02.2024 to the
     Opposite Parties. As the counsel representing the appellant happened
     to be present before the Commission, and with a view to resolve the
     dispute between the parties expeditiously, he accepted the notice
     on the same day even though he did not have the vakalatnama
     executed by the appellant in his favour. Otherwise, the notice was
     issued to Opposite Party No. 2 and matter was fixed for 19.07.2024,
     the first date of hearing fixed by the Commission after issuance of
     such notice. As the copy of the complaint was not served upon the
     appellant or its counsel, the written statement could not be filed
     in time and accordingly, prayer was made on 19.07.2024 seeking
     further time for the purpose. However, the same was declined by
     the Commission while observing that it was an attempt on the part
     of the appellant to delay the proceedings.
     8.1 However, considering the fact that the counsel for the appellant
         who happened to be present before the Commission on the very
         first date when the complaint was listed, accepted the notice,
         it does not show that there was any effort on the part of the
642                                                         [2024] 9 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


            appellant to delay the process. The next date of hearing fixed
            by the Commission was on 19.07.2024 after issuance of notice
            to Opposite Party No.2. On that day, while foreclosing the right
            of the appellant to file the written statement, six weeks’ time
            was granted to the complainants to file affidavit in evidence and
            matter was posted for 09.01.2025. Under these circumstances,
            if some reasonable time is granted to the appellant to file the
            written statement and complainant to file replication thereof,
            the pleadings would be complete before the next date of
            hearing fixed and even affidavit of evidence can be filed by the
            complainants before that date.
9.     The Constitution Bench of this Court in New India Assurance
       Company Limited’s case (supra) considered one of the questions
       as to what would be the commencing point of limitation of 30 days
       under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and opined
       that the commencing point of limitation of 30 days would be from
       the date of receipt of the notice accompanied with the complaint
       by the opposite party and not on mere receipt of the notice of the
       complaint. For ready reference questions framed thereunder and
       answer to those questions, are reproduced herein below :
            “Question No.1 : Whether the District Forum has power
            to extend the time for filing of response to the complaint
            beyond the period of 15 days, in addition to 30 days,
            as envisaged under Section 13(2)(a) of the Consumer
            Protection Act?
            Question No.2 : What would be the commencing point of
            limitation of 30 days under Section 13 of the Consumer
            Protection Act, 1986?

                    xxx                 xxx                 xxx

            62. To conclude, we hold that our answer to the first
            question is that the District Forum has no power to extend
            the time for filing the response to the complaint beyond the
            period of 15 days in addition to 30 days as is envisaged
            under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act; and the
            answer to the second question is that the commencing point
            of limitation of 30 days under Section 13 of the Consumer
            Protection Act would be from the date of receipt of the
[2024] 9 S.C.R.                                                            643

          Ricardo Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. Ravi Kuckian & Others


             notice accompanied with the complaint by the opposite
             party, and not mere receipt of the notice of the complaint.”
     9.1 If we examine the provisions of the Consumer Protection
         Act, 2019, the same are in the line with the Consumer Protection
         Act, 1986.
10. Argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the
    copy of the complaint was not served upon him. The Commission
    had put onus on the appellant to have not made any attempt to
    get the copy of the complaint. However, the fact remains that the
    Commission has merely recorded in its order dated 06.02.2024
    that the notice was accepted by the counsel for the appellant in
    Court and he was granted time to file the vakalatnama and written
    statement. The order does not record that copy of the complaint has
    been supplied by the counsel for the complainants to the counsel for
    the opposite party No.1/the appellant herein. Any such observation
    by the Commission in its order would have clinched the issue. It is
    not a case where along with the notice, copy of the complaint was
    accompanied. Therefore, it may be too harsh to foreclose anyone’s
    right to file written statement merely on conjectures and surmises.
11. For the reasons mentioned above, the present appeal is allowed. The
    impugned order passed by the Commission insofar it foreclosed the
    right of the appellant to file written statement is hereby set aside. The
    appellant is permitted to file written statement on or before 14.10.2024.
    The respondent Nos.1 to 31/complainants shall be at liberty to file
    replication, if any, by 06.11.2024 and the affidavit of evidence on or
    before 09.12.2024. The matter shall remain fixed on 09.01.2025 for
    the purpose already mentioned. The appellant is permitted to file
    written statement subject to payment of costs of ₹1,00,000/- each
    to respondent Nos.1 to 31/complainants. The payment of costs shall
    be a condition precedent for acceptance of written statement on
    record. The costs, as above, shall be transferred in the respective
    bank accounts of the respondents. In case the details thereof are not
    available with the appellant, the same can be taken in coordination
    with the counsels representing them.

     Result of the Case: Appeal allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain