Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to refusal to accept a consumer complaint response filed beyond forty-five days. In this order, it read the prospective qualification in Hilli as protecting earlier orders that had already condoned delay, rather than requiring condonation of every earlier application. It also held that the interim Reliance General Insurance direction had permitted acceptance only in appropriate cases, and the refusal here had independently been considered on merits.
Issues
- Whether the prospective qualification in Hilli or the interim Reliance General Insurance direction required acceptance of this delayed written version.
Provisions considered
- Section 13(2)(a), Consumer Protection Act, 1986The Court applied the thirty-day response period with an extension not exceeding fifteen days and reiterated the absence of power to accept a response beyond that total period. (¶¶ 2, 4, 5)
Held
- For purposes of this challenge, the Court construed the prospective qualification in Hilli as preserving orders already condoning delay and accepting late responses under the intervening direction. It rejected the contention that the earlier date of the complaint or condonation application itself compelled relief. (¶¶ 3, 4)
- Reliance General Insurance did not mandate acceptance in every case. It had left the forum to consider an appropriate case on suitable terms, and the National Commission had also examined the refusal of condonation on merits. (¶ 5)
- The Court found no ground to interfere with the National Commission’s confirmation of the State Commission order rejecting the delayed response. (¶¶ 5, 6)
Result
Special leave petition dismissed; refusal to condone the delay in filing the written version remained undisturbed.