A Five Judge Constitution Bench of the Apex Court recently, in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.[1] dealt with the issue, whether the provisions under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (Act), which provide for the Opposite Party (O.P.) to ‘file its response/written statement to the complaint within a period of 30 (thirty) days or such extended period, not exceeding 15 (fifteen) days’ should be read as mandatory or directory. In other words, the Apex Court was to decide whether consumer forums have the power to extend the time for filing the response/written statement beyond a period of 45 (forty five) days.
The Law
The legal provisions of the Act prescribes a total period of 45 (forty five) days (30+15 days) to the O.P. to file its response/written statement to the complaint preferred against it by the consumer.[2]
The Act further provides that in case no action is taken by the O.P. within the timelines mentioned above, then in such case, the concerned consumer forum (Forum) shall proceed the adjudicate the complaint ex-parte on the basis of the pleadings/documents/evidence provided by the complainant (Consequence Provision).[3]
The Conflict in the Supreme Court Decisions
The said issue was referred to a Five Judge Bench of the Apex Court, in view of a conflict which existed between its various previous decisions.
View A: In Topline Shoes Limited vs. Corporation bank[4] the Supreme Court took the view that the above described provision was directory in nature and the Forum have the power to extend time for filing the reply/written statement even beyond the outer limit of 45 (forty five) days. In arriving at this conclusion the Supreme Court inter alia, examined similar provisions under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC) including the landmark decisions of Kailash vs. Nankhu[5] and Salem Advocate Bar Association vs. Union of India[6].
View B: In J.J Merchant & Ors. vs. Shrinath Chaturvedi[7] and NIA vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage [8] however, the Supreme Court took a different view and observed that the Forum does not have the power to extend time (for filing reply) beyond the outer limit of 45 (forty five) days.
The Supreme Court Decision
The five Judge Bench of the Apex Court observed that in Topline Shoes Ltd. (supra) it did not take into account the Consequence Provision contained in the Act. Further, the Supreme Court observed that the judgments of Kailash (supra) and Salem Advocate Bar Association (supra) were in the context of the CPC which does not contain a provision similar to the Consequence Provision. Therefore, the said judgments could not be applied in the context of consumer law.
While arriving at its conclusion, the Supreme Court took into account the following aspects, amongst other things, namely:
-
The intent of the Legislature behind the Act to provide speedy and simple redressal of consumer disputes.
- The language of the said relevant provision (including the Consequence Provision) was clear and unambiguous, and hence had to be interpreted literally.
- A literal interpretation of the said provision would not result in violation of principle of natural justice.
Computation of Time Period
Another question which the judgement answers is ‘What is the date from which the time period for filing reply should be reckoned?’
In this regard the Supreme Court observed as follows:- The time period begins from the date of receipt of the complaint by the O.P.
- Mere service of notice, without service of the copy of the complaint, would not suffice and cannot be the commencing point of the time period.
- Any objections of not having received a copy of the complaint along with the notice, should be raised by the O.P. ‘on the first date’ itself and not thereafter.
Practical Challenges
While the intention of the Act is clear: expedition in adjudication of consumer matters and denial of an opportunity to the O.P. to needlessly procrastinate consumer proceedings, there however may be some road blocks towards successful implementation/enforcement of this provision and judgement:- Lack of infrastructural facilities in consumer forums throughout the country which inevitably result in delay of adjudication of consumer disputes. The authors of this article have been privy to complaints which have taken several years to be decided.
- Lack of awareness amongst registry officials. The authors of this article have seen that many a times the Registry officials (especially of District Forums) are unaware of the provisions of the Act and refuse to accept replies/documents/applications, and state that the same be handed over across the board on the date when the matter is listed. This may seriously prejudice the rights of the O.P. if the matter is listed after a period of 45 (forty five) days from the date of commencement of the time period for filing reply.
Regardless of the above, it is pertinent that all persons (against whom a complaint is preferred under the Act) abide by the above discussed strict timelines specified in the Act.
[1] Civil Appeal No. 10941-10942 of 2013
[2] Section 13 (2) (a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
[3] Section 13 (2) (b) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
[4] (2002) 6 SCC 33
[5] (2005) 4 SCC 480
[6] (2005) 6 SCC 344
[7] (2002) 6 SCC 635
[8] 2014 AIOL 4615
