Consumer Disputes: Supreme Court Addresses Delay in Filing Replies in NCDRC Cases

The Supreme Court of India recently ruled on a significant matter involving the timelines for filing replies in consumer disputes under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The case of Bhasin Infotech And Infrastructure Private Limited versus Neema Agarwal & Ors. revolved around whether the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) could condone delays beyond the statutory period of 45 days for submitting replies in consumer complaints.

Background of the Case

The dispute arose when the respondents filed a consumer complaint on March 15, 2018, alleging deficiency in service by the appellants over the cancellation of commercial unit allotments in a shopping mall. The complaint was filed under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which governed class-action consumer disputes at the time.

During the proceedings, the appellants delayed filing their reply beyond the statutory 45-day limit. They sought condonation of an 18-day delay, arguing that the time limit should be flexibly interpreted. However, the NCDRC, relying on the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench ruling in New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. [(2020) 5 SCC 757], rejected the request.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/supreme-court-dismisses-review-petition-in-family-property-dispute-case/

Supreme Court’s Key Observations

The Supreme Court reviewed the legal position and past judgments regarding the deadline for filing replies in consumer disputes. The Court examined the Constitution Bench ruling in New India Assurance, which held:

• The consumer forums cannot extend the time for filing responses beyond the additional 15 days after the 30-day statutory limit under Section 13(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act.
• The 30-day period starts from the date the respondent receives the notice along with the complaint.
• This ruling was to operate prospectively.

However, the appellants in this case argued that the prospective nature of the ruling should allow pending applications for condonation of delay to be decided independently.

Appellant’s Arguments

• The delay of 18 days was not excessive and should have been condoned under general principles of justice.
• The Constitution Bench ruling in New India Assurance should not be retrospectively applied to ongoing cases where delays were already condoned before March 4, 2020.
• Other Supreme Court rulings, such as Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mampee Timbers, allowed condonation in appropriate cases.

Respondent’s Arguments

• The law does not permit any extension beyond 45 days for filing replies in consumer complaints.
• The Constitution Bench decision was clear and binding on all consumer forums, leaving no room for exceptions.
• Allowing delays would defeat the purpose of speedy consumer dispute resolution under the Consumer Protection Act.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court acknowledged conflicting interpretations of the Constitution Bench ruling and referred the matter to a larger Bench for a definitive ruling. However, it provided interim clarity on two points:

• Cases where delays had already been condoned before March 4, 2020, would not be affected.
• Applications for condonation of delay pending before consumer forums on March 4, 2020, should be considered on their merits.

Key Takeaways

• Strict Deadline Enforcement: The Supreme Court reinforced the strict application of the 45-day deadline for filing replies in consumer disputes.
• Legal Uncertainty on Pending Cases: The question of whether the Constitution Bench ruling affects pending condonation applications remains unresolved and is referred to a larger Bench.
• Consumer Protection Laws Prioritize Speed: The ruling highlights the judiciary’s commitment to timely consumer grievance redressal.

This decision marks a crucial step in clarifying procedural rules in consumer disputes while balancing strict statutory timelines with fairness in litigation.

Petitioner Name: Bhasin Infotech And Infrastructure Private Limited.
Respondent Name: Neema Agarwal & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Vineet Saran, Justice Aniruddha Bose.
Place Of Incident: India.
Judgment Date: 06-12-2021.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: bhasin-infotech-and-vs-neema-agarwal-&-ors.-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-06-12-2021.pdf