Consumer Dispute Case: Supreme Court Upholds Strict Limitation on Filing Written Statements
The Supreme Court of India recently ruled in the case of M/s Daddy’s Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Another vs. Manisha Bhargava & Another, reinforcing the strict limitation on filing written statements in consumer dispute cases. The decision, which upheld orders of both the National and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions, reaffirmed that written versions must be submitted within the stipulated time frame under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This ruling has significant implications for businesses and litigants involved in consumer disputes.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose when the petitioners, M/s Daddy’s Builders Pvt. Ltd. and another, failed to file their written statement within the prescribed period after a consumer complaint was lodged against them. The Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission rejected their plea for condonation of delay. The National Commission upheld this decision, leading the petitioners to approach the Supreme Court.
As per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a written statement must be filed within 30 days of receiving a consumer complaint. An extension of 15 days can be granted in exceptional circumstances, making the maximum permissible period 45 days. The petitioners argued that the rule should not apply retrospectively to cases filed before the Supreme Court’s ruling in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (2020), which clarified the time limit for filing written statements.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioners, represented by their counsel, put forth the following arguments:
- The Constitution Bench ruling in the New India Assurance case explicitly stated that it would apply prospectively. Hence, cases filed before that ruling should be considered under the previous flexible interpretation.
- At the time when the State Commission ruled on the matter, the Supreme Court had not definitively barred late submissions, as it had previously permitted consumer forums to accept written statements beyond 45 days in appropriate cases.
- The Supreme Court’s 2017 ruling in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. M/s Mampee Timbers & Hardwares Pvt. Ltd. allowed consumer forums to accept late submissions, provided there were reasonable grounds.
- Since the delay in this case was due to unavoidable circumstances, the rejection of the written statement was unfair and violated principles of natural justice.
Respondent’s Defense
The respondents argued that:
- The Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench had explicitly ruled in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. that the time limit for filing written statements in consumer cases was mandatory and could not be extended beyond 45 days.
- The petitioners failed to file their response within the allowed time, despite having ample opportunity.
- The National Commission correctly interpreted the law, applying the strict time limitation.
- Accepting late submissions would defeat the purpose of expeditious resolution of consumer disputes and create unnecessary delays.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court, comprising Justices M.R. Shah and D.Y. Chandrachud, upheld the rulings of the lower forums. The bench made the following key observations:
- The Constitution Bench in New India Assurance had settled the issue by ruling that consumer forums do not have the power to accept written statements beyond 45 days.
- The argument that the ruling should apply prospectively does not hold, as the law on this point was already settled in the earlier three-judge bench ruling in J.J. Merchant vs. Shrinath Chaturvedi (2002).
- The Reliance General Insurance ruling did not grant blanket permission for accepting delayed submissions but allowed forums to consider late submissions in rare cases.
- In this case, there were no exceptional circumstances to justify the delay.
- The National Commission had properly exercised its discretion and correctly refused to condone the delay.
In its judgment, the Supreme Court explicitly stated:
“As per the decision of this Court in the case of J.J. Merchant, which was a three-judge bench decision, consumer forums have no power to extend the time for filing a reply beyond the period prescribed under the Act. The Constitution Bench in New India Assurance has reiterated the same. Thus, no further discretion can be exercised by consumer forums in this regard.”
Final Judgment
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, stating that there was no legal basis to condone the delay. It held:
- Consumer forums must strictly adhere to the statutory time limit of 45 days for filing written statements.
- The ruling in New India Assurance is consistent with earlier judgments and applies to all pending and future cases.
- Petitioners who fail to file their written statements within the prescribed period cannot expect leniency, as consumer disputes must be resolved in a timely manner.
Impact of the Judgment
This ruling has significant implications for consumer litigation:
- Businesses and individuals involved in consumer disputes must ensure timely filing of written statements to avoid forfeiting their right to present a defense.
- Consumer forums will no longer have discretionary power to accept late submissions, reinforcing the importance of procedural discipline.
- The decision strengthens consumer rights by ensuring that complaints are adjudicated swiftly without undue delays.
- Legal practitioners must advise their clients to adhere to strict timelines, as courts will not entertain delays.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling in M/s Daddy’s Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Manisha Bhargava reaffirms the strict procedural requirements in consumer disputes. By enforcing the 45-day limitation for filing written statements, the judgment ensures that cases are resolved efficiently and without unnecessary delays.
This decision serves as a crucial reminder for businesses, legal professionals, and litigants about the importance of complying with statutory deadlines. As consumer litigation continues to grow in India, the ruling will play a key role in streamlining the dispute resolution process and protecting the interests of consumers.
Petitioner Name: M/s Daddy’s Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Another.Respondent Name: Manisha Bhargava and Another.Judgment By: Justice M.R. Shah, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud.Place Of Incident: Karnataka.Judgment Date: 11-02-2021.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: ms-daddy’s-builders-vs-manisha-bhargava-and-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-11-02-2021.pdf
Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment
See all petitions in Consumer Rights
See all petitions in Legal Malpractice
See all petitions in Contract Disputes
See all petitions in Dispute Resolution Mechanisms
See all petitions in Judgment by Mukeshkumar Rasikbhai Shah
See all petitions in Judgment by Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments February 2021
See all petitions in 2021 judgments
See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
