Summary
The NCDRC foreclosed the appellant's right to file a written statement after the time it had allowed expired. The Supreme Court set that order aside because the record did not show that a copy of the complaint had ever been supplied to the appellant or its counsel. Following New India Assurance v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage, time runs from receipt of the notice together with the complaint, not from receipt of the notice alone. The written statement was allowed on costs.
Issues
- Whether the NCDRC was right to foreclose the opposite party's right to file a written statement for not filing it within the time granted, when the record did not show that a copy of the complaint had been served on it or its counsel.
Provisions considered
- Section 13(2)(a), Consumer Protection Act, 1986Following the Constitution Bench in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage, the 30-day period, extendable by at most 15 days, runs from the opposite party's receipt of the notice accompanied by the complaint, not from receipt of the notice alone. (¶ 9)
- Provisions on filing the opposite party's version, Consumer Protection Act, 2019The Court observed that the 2019 Act is in line with the 1986 Act on this point, so the same principle applied to the complaint before the NCDRC. (¶ 9.1)
Held
- The period for filing a written statement in a consumer complaint begins when the opposite party receives the notice together with a copy of the complaint, not when it merely receives notice of the complaint. The 2019 Act is in line with the 1986 Act in this respect. (¶¶ 9, 9.1)
- The NCDRC's order of 06.02.2024 recorded only that counsel accepted notice in court and was given time to file a vakalatnama and written statement. It did not record that a copy of the complaint had been supplied. Foreclosing the right to file a written statement on conjecture that the complaint had been received was too harsh. (¶ 10)
- Counsel had accepted notice on the very first date, which showed no attempt to delay. Since the next hearing was fixed months later, allowing the written statement within a reasonable time would not hold up the proceedings. (¶¶ 8, 8.1)
Result
Appeal allowed. The order foreclosing the written statement was set aside, and the appellant may file it by 14.10.2024 on paying costs of Rs. 1,00,000 to each of respondents 1 to 31 as a condition precedent. Replication is due by 06.11.2024, the affidavit of evidence by 09.12.2024, and the hearing stays fixed for 09.01.2025.