Summary
The Court declined to interfere with the NCDRC’s reasoned condonation of delay in filing an insurer’s written statement before the Constitution Bench’s decision of 4 March 2020. That decision fixed a strict thirty-day period with only fifteen additional days but operated prospectively. Earlier interim directions preserved merits-based discretion for condonation applications pending or decided before that date. This did not create an automatic entitlement to condonation. The existing costs of Rs.50,000 were directed to be transmitted within two weeks, and the complainants could file replication within four weeks.
Issues
- How the prospective operation of the Constitution Bench’s forty-five-day limit affected earlier condonation applications and orders.
- Whether the NCDRC’s pre-decision exercise of discretion warranted interference.
Provisions considered
- Section 13(2), Consumer Protection Act, 1986The strict statutory response limit was recognised, while the prospective operation of the Constitution Bench ruling preserved earlier merits-based consideration under interim Supreme Court directions. (¶ 8-16)
Held
- The Constitution Bench held that consumer fora could not extend the response period beyond thirty days plus fifteen days, calculated from receipt of notice accompanied by the complaint, and expressly made its ruling prospective. (¶ 8-9)
- During the reference, interim directions permitted acceptance of late responses in appropriate cases on suitable terms. The benefit extended to condonation applications pending or decided before 4 March 2020; their merits still required examination. (¶¶ 10, 14-15)
- Observations suggesting retrospective application in Daddy’s Builders were unnecessary to its outcome, since condonation had failed on the merits there. They did not remove the benefit of prospective operation for earlier applications. (¶ 11-15)
- The NCDRC had exercised discretion with reasons before the Constitution Bench ruling, so no interference was warranted. Payment of the imposed Rs.50,000 costs was directed within two weeks, and the complainants were allowed four weeks for replication. (¶ 16-19)
Result
Appeal disposed of without interfering with condonation; Rs.50,000 costs to be transmitted within two weeks and complainants permitted replication within four weeks.