2002 (7) TMI 562 - SC - Companies Law

Whether or not the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, could grant time to the respondent to file his reply, beyond a total period of 45 days, in view of section 13(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986? Held that - Appeal dismissed. As at the first instance, the Commission itself had fixed the date beyond 30 days and the respondent sought further time which prayer was accepted and 4-5-2000 was fixed. The respondent filed his reply on the date fixed. In such circumstances, there was no occasion to contend that the reply of the respondent should be rejected.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission could grant time to the respondent to file a reply beyond a total period of 45 days under section 13(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. Whether the provision prescribing the limit for filing a reply is mandatory or directory in nature.
3. Whether the reply filed by the respondent beyond the period of 45 days should be rejected.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Granting Time Beyond 45 Days
The primary issue revolves around whether the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission had the authority to allow the respondent to file a reply beyond the statutory period of 45 days as stipulated in section 13(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appellant argued that the Commission had no power to accept a reply filed beyond the total period of 45 days. The respondent contended that the provision fixing a period for submission of a reply is procedural and should not be interpreted to deprive a party of being heard on the merits of the case.

Issue 2: Nature of the Provision
The Court examined whether the provision under section 13(2)(a) is mandatory or directory. The provision states that the District Forum would give 30 days to the opposite party to file a reply, with an extension not exceeding 15 days. The Court noted that the provision is intended to expedite the hearing and avoid unnecessary delays. However, it does not indicate that it is mandatory. The absence of penal consequences for exceeding the 15-day extension suggests that the provision is directory. The Consumer Forums are expected to apply this procedural guideline to achieve speedy disposal while ensuring natural justice.

Issue 3: Rejection of the Reply
The Court considered whether the reply filed by the respondent beyond 45 days should be rejected. The appellant cited several cases to support the argument that procedural rules are mandatory. However, the Court distinguished these cases, noting that the Consumer Protection Act does not prescribe specific consequences for late filing. The Court emphasized that procedural rules should facilitate justice, not obstruct it. The provision under section 13(2)(a) is meant to expedite proceedings but does not create a substantive right for the complainant to have the respondent's reply rejected if it is filed beyond 45 days.

Conclusion:
The Court concluded that the provision under section 13(2)(a) is directory and not mandatory. The State Commission's discretion to extend the time for filing a reply beyond 45 days does not result in a fatal illegality. The Court found no merit in the appellant's argument that the reply should be rejected and upheld the State Commission's decision to accept the late reply. The appeal was dismissed with costs, reinforcing the principle that procedural rules should be interpreted to further justice and not to penalize parties unduly.