Question of jurisdiction of the consumer fora for extending time to file reply to complaint beyond stipulated period of 45 days, Supreme Court refers matter for larger bench

The Supreme Court has recently referred the matter for a larger bench's consideration over the question of whether consumer forum can or cannot allow filing of reply beyond the stipulated time frame of 45 days, in view of the contradicting Judgments.

A division bench of Justice Vineet Saran and Justice Aniruddha Bose noted that "In the event the Constitution Bench judgment had altogether negated the right to have delay in filing written statement condoned beyond the period of 45 days, the right of such applicants could stand extinguished."

"But as the judgment of the Constitution Bench is to operate prospectively, in our understanding of the said judgment, those with pending applications for condonation of delay would retain their right to have their applications considered," the Court added.

A Constitutional bench of the apex court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd over the issue of time of filing reply held that the consumer forum cannot condone the delay. 

In addition to this in its judgement date March 4, 2020 the bench further observed that the judgment will operate prospectively.

Whereas, in the case of Daddy’s Builders Private Limited and Others vs. Manisha Bhargava and Others the Court while referring to the judgment in the case of New India Insurance Company Limited noted "said judgment shall be applicable prospectively and therefore the said decision shall not be applicable to the complaint which was filed prior to the said judgment and/or the said decision shall not be applicable to the application for condonation of delay filed before the said decision."

However, in the case of Dr. A. Suresh Kumar & Ors vs. Amit Agarwal the Court noted, "In our view, since the application for condonation of delay was filed prior to the judgment of the Constitution Bench, which was delivered on 04.03.2020, the said  application for condonation of delay ought to have been considered on merits and should not have been dismissed on the basis of the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of New India Assurance Co. Limited (supra) because the said judgment was to operate prospectively and the written statement as well as the application for condonation of delay had been filed much prior to the said judgment."

In view of the conflicting judgments of the coordinate benches the Court observed "we refrain from expressing any definitive opinion on this point as the two Benches of equal strength have taken differing views on the manner in which the prospective application of the Constitution Bench judgment would be affected."

Case Title: Bhasin Infotech And
Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. Neema Agarwal & Ors.