‘Too harsh to foreclose anyone’s right to file written statement merely on conjectures and surmises’; SC sets aside NCDRC order

Supreme Court: In an appeal filed against the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (‘NCDRC’), whereby the right of the appellant to file written statement was foreclosed, division bench of J.K. Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. while allowing the appeal, set aside the impugned order passed by the Commission insofar as it foreclosed the right of the appellant to file a written statement.

After perusing the impugned order, the Court noted that in the complaint filed by the respondents, notice was issued on 06-02-2024 to the Opposite Parties. As the appellant’s counsel was present before the Commission, with a view to resolve the dispute expeditiously, he accepted the notice on the same day even though he did not have the vakalatnama executed by the appellant in his favour. As the copy of the complaint was not served upon the appellant or its counsel, the written statement could not be filed in time and accordingly, prayer was made on 19-07-2024 seeking further time for the purpose. However, the same was declined by the Commission while observing that it was an attempt on the part of the appellant to delay the proceedings.

The Court said that considering the fact that the appellant’s counsel who happened to be present before the Commission on the very first date when the complaint was listed, accepted the notice, it does not show that there was any effort on the part of the appellant to delay the process. The next date of hearing fixed by the Commission was on 19-07-2024 after issuance of notice to Opposite Party. On that day, while foreclosing the right of the appellant to file the written statement, six weeks’ time was granted to the complainants to file affidavit in evidence and matter was posted for 09-01-2025.

The Court said that under these circumstances, if some reasonable time is granted to the appellant to file the written statement and complainant to file replication thereof, the pleadings would be complete before the next date of hearing fixed and even affidavit of evidence can be filed by the complainants before that date.

The Court referred to New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (P) Ltd., (2020) 5 SCC 757 ,wherein the Court dealt with what would be the commencing point of limitation of 30 days under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and opined that the commencing point of limitation of 30 days would be from the date of receipt of the notice accompanied with the complaint by the opposite party and not on mere receipt of the notice of the complaint.

The Court remarked that the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, are in line with the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The Court further said that the Commission had put onus on the appellant for not having made any attempt to get the copy of the complaint. However, the Commission has merely recorded in its order dated 06-02-2024 that the notice was accepted by the appellant’s counsel, and he was granted time to file the vakalatnama and written statement. The order does not record that copy of the complaint has been supplied by the counsel for the complainants to the counsel for the opposite party. Any such observation by the Commission in its order would have clinched the issue. It is not a case where along with the notice, a copy of the complaint was accompanied. Therefore, it may be too harsh to foreclose anyone’s right to file a written statement merely on conjectures and surmises.

Thus, while allowing the appeal, the Court set aside the impugned order passed by the Commission insofar as it foreclosed the right of the appellant to file a written statement.

The Court permitted the appellant to file a written statement on or before 14-10-2024. The respondent/complainants were allowed to file replication, if any, by 06-11-2024 and the affidavit of evidence on or before 09-12-2024.

The Court further clarified that the matter would remain fixed on 09-01-2025 and permitted the appellant a written statement subject to payment of costs of ₹1,00,000/- each to respondents /complainants.