Consumer Rights and Justice: Supreme Court Restores Complaint Against Builder

The case of Vibha Bakshi Gokhale & Anr. vs. M/s Gruhashilp Constructions & Ors. involved a dispute over a residential flat, where the appellants alleged a deficiency of service by the builder. They approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), but their complaint was dismissed on technical grounds due to a delay in filing certain documents. The Supreme Court intervened, emphasizing the importance of consumer rights and the need for justice beyond procedural technicalities.

Background of the Case

The appellants had filed a complaint with the NCDRC, alleging that the respondents had failed to fulfill their obligations regarding the booking of a residential flat. The complaint was filed in 2016, but procedural delays led to the NCDRC issuing a final order dismissing the case on February 15, 2019.

The reason cited by the NCDRC was that the complainants had failed to file a rejoinder and supporting evidence within the stipulated time. The Commission had previously granted them a four-week deadline in its order dated November 16, 2018, warning that failure to comply would result in automatic dismissal of the complaint.

When the appellants failed to meet this deadline, the NCDRC dismissed the case, stating that further delay suggested a lack of merit in their complaint.

Key Legal Issues

The Supreme Court had to determine whether the NCDRC’s decision to dismiss the case solely on technical grounds was justified, particularly in light of the purpose and objectives of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Arguments Presented

• Petitioners (Vibha Bakshi Gokhale & Anr.):
• They argued that their delay in filing the rejoinder and affidavit of evidence was unintentional and did not warrant dismissal of their case.
• The dismissal of their complaint was based on a technicality, which violated the spirit of consumer protection laws.
• The NCDRC should have exercised discretion to allow their documents to be filed late, given that consumer forums exist to serve justice rather than penalize procedural delays.
• Respondents (M/s Gruhashilp Constructions & Ors.):
• The respondents contended that the case had been pending since 2016, and the appellants had already been granted an extension, which they failed to utilize.
• The rules of the NCDRC are clear, and failure to meet deadlines should result in dismissal to ensure procedural discipline.
• The NCDRC had acted within its authority in dismissing the complaint.

Supreme Court’s Observations and Judgment

The Supreme Court took a strong stance against the dismissal of consumer complaints on purely technical grounds. The bench, comprising Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and Hemant Gupta, noted:

“We find that the ground for rejection of the complaint is technical and in disregard of the requirements of substantial justice. The purpose which Parliament sought to achieve by setting up the NCDRC is to protect the rights of consumers to seek access to justice under the Consumer Protection Act 1986.”

The Court criticized the NCDRC’s assumption that the complainants had no merit in their case simply because of a delay in filing documents:

“On 15 February 2019, the NCDRC declined to grant any further time to the appellants and proceeded to observe that it is perhaps because the appellants do not have any merit in the case, that there was a delay in filing a rejoinder and evidence. This inference was unwarranted.”

The Court also highlighted the broader problem of consumer complaints being dismissed due to minor procedural issues, stating:

“We have also been repeatedly observing that marginal delays are not being condoned by the NCDRC on the ground that the Consumer Protection Act 1986 stipulates a period within which a consumer complaint has to be disposed of. Though the Act stipulates a period for disposing of a consumer complaint, it is also a sobering reflection that complaints cannot be disposed of due to non-availability of resources and infrastructure.”

Based on these considerations, the Supreme Court ruled:

• The NCDRC’s decision was unjustified and failed to uphold the true purpose of the Consumer Protection Act.
• The complaint should not have been dismissed on technical grounds alone.
• The case was restored, and the NCDRC was directed to accept the rejoinder and affidavit of evidence from the complainants.

Conclusion

This judgment reinforces the principle that consumer protection laws must prioritize justice over procedural formalities. The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a reminder to consumer forums that their primary duty is to protect consumer rights and ensure fair hearings, rather than dismiss cases over minor procedural lapses.

The ruling also sets an important precedent for future cases, ensuring that procedural delays do not become a tool for denying justice to genuine consumers. It upholds the fundamental principle that access to justice should not be sacrificed for the sake of procedural efficiency.

Petitioner Name: Vibha Bakshi Gokhale & Anr..
Respondent Name: M/s Gruhashilp Constructions & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Hemant Gupta.
Place Of Incident: India.
Judgment Date: 10-05-2019.

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

Download Judgment: Vibha Bakshi Gokhale vs Ms Gruhashilp Const Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 10-05-2019.pdf