Delay Condonation Applications Preferred Before Consumer Fora Prior To 4 March 2020 Must Be Decided On Merits; Should Not Be Summarily Dismissed: SC
The Supreme Court held that the application(s) seeking condonation of delay preferred before the consumer fora prior to 04.03.2020 [i.e., the date of pronouncement of the Constitution Bench judgment in New India Assurance v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (P) Ltd], must be decided on merits; and ought not to be summarily dismissed.
In this case, the court directed National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission to adjudicate an application seeking condonation of delay of 285 days in filing a Written Statement in a 2015 case.
The Court was hearing a Civil Appeal arising from an order in a Consumer Complaint where the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission forfeited the right of the Appellant to file its written statement on account of lapse in conforming to the statutory period prescribed for filing its written statement, under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The bench of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma observed, “The application(s) seeking condonation of delay preferred before the consumer fora prior to 04.03.2020 i.e., the date of pronouncement of New India Assurance 2 (Supra), must be decided on merits; and ought not to be summarily dismissed.”
Brief Facts-
In a consumer complaint filed before the NCDRC in 2015, the Respondents sought compensation for the alleged medical negligence which resulted in the death of the complainant’s wife during a thoracotomy surgery. The NCDRC issued a notice but the Appellants delayed filing their written statement by 285 days which is beyond the 30-day statutory limit prescribed under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2013. The NCDRC rejected the filing of the written statement. Hence, the Appellants approached the Supreme Court.
The Court noted that in the present case, the order by the NCDRC was passed before the date of the pronouncement of the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (P) Ltd., where it was categorically observed, “that the rigours of Section 13 of the Act needed to be complied with mandatorily; however, on account of various conflicting decision(s) of this Court, the Constitution Bench clarified that New India Assurance 2 (Supra) would operate prospectively.”
The court noted that divergent view with respect to the position of the cases filed before the New India Assurance case was pronounced was reconciled and authoritatively settled in Diamond Exports v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2022) 4 SCC 169 where it was observed, “that Daddy's Builders (P) Ltd. (Supra) would not affect applications seeking condonation of delay that were pending or decided on or before 04.03.2020, and accordingly, such application(s) seeking condonation of delay would be entitled to the benefit granted by this Court in Mampee Timbers (Supra).”
Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned order and allowed the Appeal.
