9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 1368X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 clearly provides that ordinarily such notice to the opposite party to file its response shall be issued for a period of 30 days, but the same can be even less than 30 days, depending upon the circumstances of each case. By specifically enacting a provision Under Sub-section (3) of Section 13, with a specific clarification that violation of the principles of natural justice shall not be called in question where the procedure prescribed Under Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act has been followed or complied with, the intention of the legislature is clear that mere denial of further extension of time for filing the response (by the opposite party) would not amount to denial or violation of the principles of natural justice. This provision of Section 13(3) reinforces the time limit specified in Section 13(2)(a) of the Act. The case of JJ. MERCHANT (DR.) ORS. VERSUS SHRINATH CHATURVEDI [ 2002 (8) TMI 835 - SUPREME COURT] is one relating to the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, and has been decided by a Bench of three Judges of this Court. In this case it has been held that the time limit p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jee, Vineet Saran, M.R. Shah And S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ. Civil Appeal Nos. 10127, 10129 of 2016, Civil Appeal No. 1968 of 2020 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 29264 of 2016), Civil Appeal No. 1969 of 2020 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 31190 of 2016), Civil Appeal No. 1970 of 2020 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 36048 of 2016), Civil Appeal No. 10333 of 2016, Civil Appeal No. 1971 of 2020 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 1300 of 2017), Civil Appeal No. 10858 of 2016, Civil Appeal No. 1972 of 2020 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 35551 of 2016), Civil Appeal No. 1973 of 2020 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 34843 of 2016), Civil Appeal No. 1974 of 2020 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 21388 of 2017) Civil Appeal No. 1975 of 2020 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 13951 of 2017), Civil Appeal No. 1976 of 2020 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 10796 of 2017), Civil Appeal Nos. 780, 4457 of 2017, Civil Appeal No. 1977 of 2020 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 151 of 2017), Civil Appeal No. 1978 of 2020 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Venkateswara Rao Anumolu, Chandra Mohan Anisetty, E. Seshagiri Rao, Maibam N. Singh, Pramod Dayal, Badri Prasad Singh, Neha Chaudhary, Sunil K. Khatri, Sudeep Kumar, Mayuri Raghuvanshi, Vyom Raghuvanshi, Sangya Negi, Viiswastya K. Sharma, O.P. Gaggar, Aditya Gaggar, Sachindra Karn, Uday Gupta, Hiren Dasan, Chand Qureshi, Shivani M. Lal, Hemant Kushwaha, Harish Dasan, M.K. Tripathi, Sarla Chandra, A.N. Arora, Sateesh Galla, Usha Rani Gara, N. Rajaraman, Ruby Singh Ahuja, Vishal Gehrana, Anmol Jassal, Advs. for Karanjawala Co., Shekhar Kumar, Priya Puri, P.S. Sudheer, Rishi Maheshwari, Mayuri Nayyar, Anne Mathew, Shruti Jose, D. Bharat Kumar, Tadimalla Baskar Gowtham, Nitin S. Tambwekar, Pritha Srikumar, S. Mahendran, Amit Shukla, Deva Shukla, Varun Punia, Bhavin R. Bhatia, Arpit Rai, Amogh Singh, Sanjeev R. Singh, Aviral Kashyap, Ritesh Agrawal, Tejas Bhatia, Aishwarya Adlakha, Himanshu Shekhar, Kumar Mihir, Vivek Kumar, Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Gaurav Sharma, Prateek Bhatia, M.T. George, Susy Abraham, Johns George, Umesh Kumar Khaitan, Ranjey Dubey, Srishti Sharma, Yati Sharma, Shiv Ram Sharma, Harish Uppal, Tilshwa Prasad, Anushree Menon, Gagan Gupta, Divya Sharma, Suryajyoti Singh, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate if the conflict is resolved by an authoritative judgment. Further since the conflict is between Benches comprising three Judges we deem it fit to refer these appeals to a five-Judge Bench to resolve the conflict once and for all. While we do so we are mindful of the fact that in the ordinary course a two-Judge Bench ought to make a reference to a three-Judge Bench in the first place but in the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the conflict is between coordinate Benches comprising three Judges a reference to three Judges may not suffice. 4. The other question has been referred by another Division Bench of this Court by an Order dated 18.01.2017 passed in this very appeal being Civil Appeal No(s). 10941-10942 of 2013, NIA v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., the relevant portion of the judgment is as under: ..........what is the commencing point of the limitation of 30 days stipulated in Section 13 of the Act is required to be decided authoritatively. The declaration made in JJ Merchant's case that the said period is to be reckoned from the date of the receipt of the notice by the opposite party or complaint under the Act req ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts or fails to take any action to represent his case within the time given by the District Forum, the District Forum shall proceed to settle consumer dispute,- (i) on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant and the opposite party, where the opposite party denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint, or (ii) ex parte on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant where the opposite party omits or fails to take any action to represent his case within the time given by the Forum; (c) where the complainant fails to appear on the date of hearing before the District Forum, the District Forum may either dismiss the complaint for default or decide it on merits. (3) No proceedings complying with the procedure laid down in Sub-sections (1) and (2) shall be called in question in any court on the ground that the principles of natural justice have not been complied with. [(3A) Every complaint shall be heard as expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall be made to decide the complaint within a period of three months from the date of receipt of notice by opposite party where the complaint does not require analysis or te ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibed manner fifty per cent of that amount or twenty-five thousand rupees, whichever is less. Section 19. Appeals.--Any person aggrieved by an order made by the State Commission in exercise of its powers conferred by Sub-clause (i) of Clause (a) of Section 17 may prefer an appeal against such order to the National Commission within a period of thirty days from the date of the order in such form and manner as may be prescribed: Provided that the National Commission may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period: Provided further that no appeal by a person, who is required to pay any amount in terms of an order of the State Commission, shall be entertained by the National Commission unless the Appellant has deposited in the prescribed manner fifty per cent of the amount or rupees thirty-five thousand, whichever is less. Section-24A. Limitation period. (1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. (2) Notwithsta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... days from the date of the order or receipt of the order, as the case may be; (iv) The period of limitation for filing any application for which no period of limitation has been specified in the Act, the Rules of these regulations shall be thirty days from the date of the cause of action or the date of knowledge. (2) Subject to the provisions of the Act, the Consumer Forum may condone the delay in filing an application or a petition referred to in Sub-regulation (1) if valid and sufficient reasons to its satisfaction are given. Regulation-26. Miscellaneous. (1) In all proceedings before the Consumer Forum, endeavour shall be made by the parties and their counsel to avoid the use of provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908): Provided that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 may be applied which have been referred to in the Act or in the Rules made thereunder. (2).................... (3).................... (4).................... (5).................... (6).................... 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 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... where it is not to be extended. Like, Under Sub-section (3A) of Section 13, despite the best efforts of the District Forum, in situations where the complaint cannot be decided within the period specified therein, the same can be decided beyond the specified period for reasons to be recorded in writing by the District Forum at the time of disposing of the complaint. Meaning thereby that the same would not be mandatory, but only directory. The phrase endeavour shall be made , makes the intention of the legislature evident that the District Forum is to make every effort to decide the case expeditiously within time, but the same can also be decided beyond the said period, but for reasons to be recorded. 13. On the contrary, Sub-section (2)(a) of Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act provides for the opposite party to give his response 'within a period of 30 days or such extended period not exceeding 15 days as may be granted by the District Forum'. The intention of the legislature seems to be very clear that the opposite party would get the time of 30 days, and in addition another 15 days at the discretion of the Forum to file its response. No further discretion of gran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovides for the limitation period of 2 years for filing the complaint. However, Sub-section (2) of Section 24A gives a discretion to entertain a complaint even after the period of 2 years, if there is a satisfactory cause for not filing the complaint within such period, which has to be recorded in writing. 16. Regulation 14 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 also deals with limitation. In addition, the same provides for limitation while dealing with appeals (Under Section 15 and 19) and complaint (Under Section 24A). Sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 14 provides for condonation of delay for sufficient reasons to be recorded. 17. The legislature in its wisdom has provided for filing of complaint or appeals beyond the period specified under the relevant provisions of the Act and Regulations, if there is sufficient cause given by the party, which has to be to the satisfaction of the concerned authority. No such discretion has been provided for Under Section 13(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act for filing a response to the complaint beyond the extended period of 45 days (30 days plus 15 days). Had the legislature not wanted to make such provision mandatory but only dir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he statute. If the language is plain and hence allows only one meaning, the same has to be given effect to, even if it causes hardship or possible injustice. While concluding, it was observed that the hardship caused to an individual, cannot be a ground for not giving effective and grammatical meaning to every word of the provision, if the language used therein, is unequivocal. Further, it has been held by this Court in the case of Popat Bahiru Govardhane v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2013) 10 SCC 765 that the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its vigour when the statute so prescribes and that the Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds, even if the statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party. 19. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Respondent is that by not leaving a discretion with the District Forum for extending the period of limitation for filing the response before it by the opposite party, grave injustice would be caused as there could be circumstances beyond the control of the opposite party because of which the opposite pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hardship which may be caused to a party has to be ignored. 21. It has been further contended that the language of Section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act is pari materia to Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the Code') and if time can be extended for filing of written submission in a suit under the aforesaid provision of the Code, the same would apply to the filing of response to complaint under the Consumer Protection Act as well, and hence the provision of Section 13(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act would be directory and not mandatory. In this regard, what is noteworthy is that Regulation 26 of the Consumer Protection Regulation, 2005, clearly mandates that endeavour is to be made to avoid the use of the provisions of the Code except for such provisions, which have been referred to in the Consumer Protection Act and the Regulations framed thereunder, which is provided for in respect of specific matters enumerated in Section 13(4) of the Consumer Protection Act. It is pertinent to note that non-filing of written statement Under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code is not followed by any consequence of such non-filing within the tim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot directory. 22. After noticing that there were delays in deciding the complaints by the District Forum, the legislature inserted Sub-section (3A) of Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act providing for a time limit for deciding the complaints. From this it is amply clear that the intention of the legislature was, and has always been, for expeditious disposal of the complaints. By providing for extension of time for disposal of the cases filed, for reasons to be recorded, the legislature has provided for a discretion to the Forum that wherever necessary, the extension of the time can be provided for, and where such further extension is not to be granted [as in the case of Section 13(2)(a)], the legislature has consciously not provided for the same, so as to achieve the object of the Act. 23. In SCG Contracts (India) Private Limited v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Private Limited (2019) 12 SCC 210, this Court, was dealing with a case relating to the filing of written statement under the Code, in respect of a case under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. After noticing the amendments brought in Order V Rule 1, Order VIII Rule 1 and Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code with regard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... observing that there is an apparent conflict between the decisions of this Court in Topline Shoes (supra); Kailash v. Nanhku (2005) 4 SCC 480 and Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India (2005) 6 SCC 344 on the one hand; and Dr. J.J. Merchant (supra) and NIA v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (2015) 16 SCC 22, on the other hand. 28. In Topline Shoes (supra), a Division Bench of this Court, while dealing with the provisions of Section 13(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, has held that the said provision would be directory and not mandatory. While holding so, the Bench relied on the principles of natural justice, and also that no consequence of non-filing of the response to the complaint within 45 days is provided for in the Consumer Protection Act. In paragraph 8 of the said judgment, this Court held: It is for the Forum or the Commission to consider all facts and circumstances along with the provisions of the Act providing time-frame to file reply, as a guideline and then to exercise its discretion as best as it may serve the ends of justice and achieve the object of speedy disposal of such cases keeping in mind the principles of natural justice as well. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry. While holding so, the Court was of the view that the consequences flowing from non-extension of time are not specifically provided in the Code. The decision in the said case has no bearing on the question under consideration, as the present reference before us is under the Consumer Protection Act, where, as we have already observed, consequences are specifically provided for. In passing, in paragraph 35 of the said judgment, the Bench referred to the case of Topline Shoes (supra), where the provision of Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act was considered to be directory, and not mandatory. In our view, the same would not have the effect of affirming the decision of Topline Shoes (supra) since the Court, in the aforesaid case, was dealing with the provisions of the Code and not the specific provisions of Consumer Protection Act. We are thus of the opinion that Kailash v. Nanhku (supra) has not overruled the decision in Dr. J.J. Merchant (supra) with regard to the provision of the Consumer Protection Act. 30. Again, in the case of Salem Advocates Bar Association (supra), this Court was dealing with a case Under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code and in paragraph 20, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der in relation to the suit as it thinks fit . Clearly, therefore, the provision of Order 8 Rule 1 providing for the upper limit of 90 days to file written statement is directory. As such in our view, the said judgment would hold the field with regard to Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code and would not be applicable to cases dealing with the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, or such other enactment wherein a provision akin to Section 13(2) is there and the consequences are also provided. 31. The case of Dr. J.J. Merchant (supra) is one relating to the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, and has been decided by a Bench of three Judges of this Court (which is after the decision in the case of Topline Shoes (supra) was rendered). In this case it has been held that the time limit prescribed for filing the response to the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, as provided Under Section 13(2)(a), is to be strictly adhered to, i.e. the same is mandatory, and not directory. In paragraph 13 of the said judgment, it has been held that: For having speedy trial, this legislative mandate of not giving more than 45 days in submitting the written stateme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... observing so, and considering aforesaid amendments, this Court held that the time limit of 30 plus 15 days in filing the response to the complaint, be mandatory and strictly adhered to. 32. The decision of another Bench of three Judges in NIA v. Hilli Multipurpose Coldstorage (supra), which has been considered in the referring order was passed by a bench of two Judges in the same case, after noticing a conflict of views in the cases of Dr. J.J. Merchant (supra) and Kailash v. Nanhku (supra). After considering the provisions of the Code and Consumer Protection Act, the reference was answered that the law laid down by a three Judge Bench of this Court in Dr. J.J. Merchant (supra) should prevail . In coming to this conclusion, the following was observed in paragraphs 25 and 26 of the said judgment: 25. We are, therefore, of the view that the judgment delivered in J.J. Merchant holds the field and therefore, we reiterate the view that the District Forum can grant a further period of 15 days to the opposite party for filing his version or reply and not beyond that. 26. There is one more reason to follow the law laid down in J.J. Merchant. J.J. Merchant was decided in 2002, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... posite party or complaint under the Act, requires a more critical analysis. The bench thus opined that what is the commencing point of the limitation of 30 days stipulated in Section 13 of the Act is required to be decided authoritatively . It is thus that this question has been placed before us for an authoritative decision. 37. For deciding this question, we may first analyse the relevant provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and the Regulations framed thereunder. Sub-sections (2)(a) and (2)(b) of Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act specify that it is the copy of the complaint which is to given to the opposite party directing him to give his version of the case within a period of 30 days or such extended period, not exceeding 15 days. As such, from the aforesaid provision itself, it is clear that it is the copy of the admitted complaint which is to be served, after which the period to file the response would commence. Further, Regulation 10 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 also specifies the procedure of issuing notice, which should be accompanied by copy of the complaint. Regulation 10(5) clearly mentions that along with the notice, copies of the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the arbitral award is made, a signed copy shall be delivered to each party . The term party is defined by Clause (h) of Section 2 of the Act as meaning a party to an arbitration agreement . The definition is to be read as given unless the context otherwise requires. Under Sub-section (3) of Section 34 the limitation of 3 months commences from the date on which the party making that application had received the arbitral award. ............... From the above, what we notice is that wherever limitation is provided, either for filing response/written statement or filing an appeal, it is the copy of the plaint or the order/award which is to be served on the party concerned after which alone would commence the period of limitation. 40. Now reverting to the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, a conjoint reading of Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 13 would make the position absolutely clear that the commencing point of limitation of 30 days, under the aforesaid provisions, would be from the date of receipt of notice accompanied by a copy of the complaint, and not merely receipt of the notice, as the response has to be given, within the stipulated time, to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
