The Hon'ble Constitution Bench, of the Apex Court comprising of Hon'ble Justice
The Constitution Bench vide instant judgment addressed, discussed and settled the following two questions:
a) Whether the
b) What would be the commencing point of limitation of 30 days stipulated under Section 13 of the Act?
1. OBJECT OF THE ACT
The Hon'ble Supreme Court contended that the main motive of the Act is to provide expeditious disposal of the consumer disputes and that it is for the protection and benefit of the consumer. The statement of objects and reasons, states that the act is to provide speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes. Further, the preamble of the Consumer Protection Act also mentions that the Act is to provide for better protection of the consumer interest.
2. THE HON'BLE BENCH WHILE HIGHLIGHTING THE EMPHASIS ON SPEEDY DISPOSAL OF THE CONSUMER DISPUTES, HIGHLIGHTED THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS
i) Sub section 2(b)(ii) of Section 13 of the Act provides that where no response is filed by the opposite party, the complaint may be decided exparte on the basis of evidence brought forth by the complainant.
ii) Sub Section 2(c) of Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act further provides that where the complainant fails to appear on the date of hearing before the
iii) (3A) of Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, which was inserted by Act 62 of 2002, also provides for deciding every complaint as expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall be made to decide the complaint within a period of three months from the receipt of notice by the opposite party, and within five months, if the complaint requires analysis or testing of commodities.
iv) Sub section (3) of Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, which clearly provides that "No proceedings complying with the procedure laid down in the subsection (1) and (2) shall be called in question in any court on the ground that the principles of natural justice have not been complied with". The intention of the legislature thus, is clear that mere denial of further extension of time for filing the response (by the opposite party) would not amount to denial or violation of the principles of natural justice.
v) Regulation 10 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005, clearly provides that, ordinarily, notice to the opposite party to file its response shall be issued for a period of 30 days, but the same can be even less than 30 days, depending upon the circumstances of each case.
3. JUDICIAL INTERPRETATIONS RELIED UPON BY THE HON'BLE BENCH FOR COMPUTING LIMITATION PERIOD, WHEREVER IT IS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED BY THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS
i)
ii) Bhikraj Jaipurai v.
iii) In
iv) In Popat Bahiru Govardhane v. Special Land
Acquisition Officer4, The Apex Court has held that, "It is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party, but the court has no choice but to enforce it".
4. THE HON'BLE BENCH WHILE CONSIDERING THE ASPECTS OF LAW AND EQUITY, REFERRED TO THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS AND ASSERTIVELY REITERATED THE SETTLED LAW, THAT LAW SHALL ALWAYS PREVAIL OVER EQUITY
a)
b)
c) In Nasiruddin vs
d) In
e)
5. POSITION OF LAW UNDER VARIOUS STATUTES FOR NON-FILING OF RESPONSE BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY/RESPONDENT WITHIN THE LIMITATION PERIOD, WHERE THE STATUTORY LIMITATION PERIOD IS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED
a) Civil Procedure Code, 1908
i) The language of 13(2) of the Act is not pari materia to Order VIII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"). The Hon'ble Bench stressed upon regulation 26 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005, which clearly mandates that endeavor is to be made to avoid the use of the provisions of the Code except for such provisions, which have been referred to in the Consumer Protection Act and the Regulations framed thereunder, which is provided for in respect of specific matters enumerated in Section 13(4) of the Consumer Protection Act.
ii) The Hon'ble Bench also noted that the Order VIII Rule 1 read with Order VIII Rule 10 of the code, prescribes that the maximum period of 120 days provided under Order VIII Rule is actually not meant to be mandatory, but only directory. Whereas, sub section (2)(b)(ii) of Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act clearly provides for the consequence of the complaint to be proceeded ex parte against the opposite party, if the opposite party omits or fails to represent his case within the time given.
b) Commercial Courts Act, 2015
The Hon'ble Bench also emphasized that under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code, for suits filed under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, a proviso has been introduced for commercial disputes of a specified value, which reads as, "Provided further that no Court shall make an Order to extend the time provided under Rule 1 of this Order for filing the written statement". Thus, for commercial suits, time for filing written statement provided under Order VIII Rule 1 is meant to be mandatory, not directory. The Hon'ble Bench relied upon
c) Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992
The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the matter of
6. CONTRARY VIEWS HELD IN PRIOR RULINGS OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CONTEXT OF TIME LIMITATION FOR FILING RESPONSE BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY UNDER SECTION 13 OF ACT
The Apex Court, in the matter of
Whereas, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the matter of Dr.
The Hon'ble Court further considered that in Sub section (2)(b)(ii) of Section 13, the opening sentence "on the basis of evidence" has been substituted by "ex parte on the basis of evidence". By this amendment, consequences of not filing the response to the complaint within the specified limit of 45 days was to be that the
It was further noticed that Sub section (3A) of Section 13 was inserted, providing that the complaint should be heard as expeditiously as possible and that endeavor should be made to normally decide the complaint within 3 months, and within 5 months where analysis or testing of commodities was required. The provisos to the said Sub section required that no adjournment should be ordinarily granted and if granted, it should be for sufficient cause to be recorded in writing and on imposition of cost, and if the complaint could not be decided within the specified period, reasons for the same were to be recorded at the time of disposing of the complaint.
It was thus, under these circumstances the Apex Court held that the time limit of 30 days plus 15 days in filing the response to the complaint, be mandatorily and strictly adhered to.
That after giving due consideration to the views taken by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid matters, the Court vide its judgment in the matter of NIA vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage14, agreed with the view taken in theDr.
7. COMMENCING POINT OF LIMITATION FOR FILING RESPONSE BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY UNDER SECTION 13 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986
The other question qua commencing point of limitation of 30 days stipulated under Section 13 of the Act was also determined by the Constitution Bench, i.e. whether the limitation under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act for filing the response by the opposite party to the complaint would commence from the date of receipt of the notice of the complaint by the opposite party, or the receipt of notice accompanied by a copy of the complaint.
The Constitution Bench in order to decide the aforesaid question, analysed that Sub sections (2)(a) and (2)(b) of Section13 of the Consumer Protection Act specify that the copy of the complaint is to be given to the opposite party directing him to give his version of the case within a period of 30 days or such extended period, not exceeding 15 days. As such, from the aforesaid provision itself, it is clear that it is the copy of the admitted complaint, which is to be served, after which the period to file the response would commence. Further the Hon'ble Bench also relied upon regulation 10(5) of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005, which mentions that "along with the notice, copies of the complaint, memorandum of grounds of appeal, petitions as the case may be and other documents filed shall be served upon the opposite party(ies)/respondent(s)".
The Hon'ble bench further placed its reliance upon
Thus, the Hon'ble Constitution Bench in the instant matter, after analyzing various provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Consumer Protection Regulations 2005, position of law for filing response by the
Footnotes
1 (1976) 2 SCC 953
2 AIR 1962 SC 113
3 (2013) 11 SCC 451
4 (2013) 10 SCC 765
5 (2003) 5 SCC 413
6 (2003) 3 SCC 541
7 (2003) 2 SCC 577
8 (2003) 1 SCC 123
9 (2003) 9 SCC 393
10 (2019) 12 SCC 210
11 (2004) 11 SCC 472
12 (2002) 6 SCC 33
13 (2002) 6 SCC 635
14 (2015) 16 SCC 22
15 (2007) 9 SCC 466
16 (2005) 4 SCC 239
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
Mr
E-337, East Of Kailash
110065
Tel: 1146667000
Fax: 1146667001
E-mail: india@singhassociates.in
URL: www.singhassociates.in
© Mondaq Ltd, 2020 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source