Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said applications seeking condonation of delay preferred before the consumer fora prior to March 04, 2020, the date of pronouncement of New India Assurance Co Ltd vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (P) Ltd, (2020), must be decided on merits and ought not to be summarily dismissed.

A bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma pointed out the Constitution Bench by its decision in New India Assurance Co Ltd Vs Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (P) Ltd, (2020) categorically observed that the rigours of Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act needed to be complied with mandatorily; however, on account of various conflicting decisions of this court, it had clarified that the judgment would operate prospectively.

The court also noted, a three-judge bench of this court in Diamond Exports Vs United India Insurance Co Ltd (2022) were tasked with inter alia reconciling and authoritatively settling the divergent views taken by this court in respect of underlying complaints either pending or instituted prior to March 04, 2020 i.e., the date of pronouncement of New India Assurance two. 

"Thus, in this context, this court in Diamond Exports categorically held that Daddy's Builders (P) Ltd would not affect applications seeking condonation of delay that were pending or decided on or before 04.03.2020, and accordingly, such application(s) seeking condonation of delay would be entitled to the benefit granted by this court in Mampee Timbers," the bench said.

In the case at hand, the court noted the undisputed facts of the present lis revealed that the impugned order was passed by the NCDRC on July 22, 2016 i.e., prior to March 04, 2020 the date of pronouncement of the decision in New India Assurance 2 by the Constitution Bench. 

Accordingly, in this background, it was contended by the appellant Dr Vijay Dixit and others that on account of the prospective operation of the said decision, coupled with the observations of this court in Diamond Exports, the instant appeal ought to be allowed with a direction to the NCDRC to render a decision on merits qua the underlying application seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statements.

"In considered opinion of this court, the categorical observations of the Constitution Bench in New India Assurance 2; coupled with the finding(s) of a bench of 3 judges of this court in Diamond Exports have authoritatively brought quietus to the underlying issue. The application(s) seeking condonation of delay preferred before the consumer fora prior to 04.03.2020 i.e., the date of pronouncement of New India Assurance 2 (Supra), must be decided on merits; and ought not to be summarily dismissed," the bench said.

The appellants here were aggrieved with an order of July 22, 2016 in consumer complaint of 2015, wherein the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission forfeited their right of to file its written statement on account of the lapse in conforming to statutory period prescribed for filing its written statement, under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

In the complaint filed before the NCDRC, the respondent Pagadal Krishna Mohan and others sought a compensation of Rs 47.36 Cr on account of inter alia the death of his wife due to alleged medical negligence; and adoption of unfair trade practices by the petitioners herein whilst conducting a left thoracotomy i.e., mediastinal tumour excision under general anaesthesia.

To the notice, the appellants ought to have filed their written statements within a period of 30 days thereafter i.e., on or before June 28, 2015. However, the appellants filed its written statements together with an application seeking condonation of delay on April 12, 2016 before the NCDRC i.e., after a delay of 285 days beyond the 30 day period granted to them.

By the impugned order, the NCDRC closed the right of the appellants from filing their written statements account of them exceeding the statutory period prescribed for filing such written statement, under Section 13 of the Act.

On an overall consideration, the bench set aside the impugned order and allowed the instant appeal by directing the NCDRC to adjudicate the underlying application seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statements in the underlying complaint on merits.

In a related matter, the bench also allowed an appeal by New India Assurance Co Ltd against an order of August 22, 2013 in consumer complaint, wherein the NCDRC forfeited the right of the appellant Company to file its written statement due to lapse in conforming to statutory period prescribed for filing its written statement, under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.