Read Time: 10 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently observed that when responding to a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, the 30-day deadline starts from the date the opposing party receives both the notice and the complaint, not just the notice itself  .

A bench of J K Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal allowed a civil appeal by Ricardo Constructions Pvt Ltd against the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's order on July 19, 2024, which denied Ricardo Constructions the right to file a written statement in response to a complaint filed by one Ravi Kuckian and 30 others.

Since the Commission did not record that the complaint's copy was also provided to the appellant, it may be too harsh to foreclose anyone’s right to file a written statement merely on conjectures and surmises, the bench said.

The appellant's counsel submitted that the time as provided in law was not granted to file the written statement. Hence, the Commission's order could be set aside and the appellant could be given an opportunity to file a written statement.

The appellant also said that the copy of the complaint was not handed over to him. The service of notice on the appellant was not done by the process of the court. In the absence of a copy of the complaint, it was not possible for him to file its written statement, the appellant argued.

It also relied upon the Constitution Bench judgment in New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited (2020). There is no cause on our part to delay the proceedings, the appellant said.

Even after foreclosing the right of the appellant to file the written statement on July 19, 2024 and granting six weeks’ time to the complainants to file affidavit of evidence, the next date of hearing was fixed more than five months thereafter. In such circumstances if opportunity is granted to the appellant to file its written statement, he shall file the same without delay and the complainants thereafter would have sufficient time to file rejoinder and also affidavit of evidence, much before the next date of hearing on January 09, 2025 as fixed by the Commission, the counsel for the appellant said.

The respondent, on the opposite, submitted that a maximum period of 45 days could be granted to opposite party to file the written statement and the Commission had rightly foreclosed the right of the appellant to file the written statement as from the date of acceptance of notice, more than 45 days had expired and the written statement had not yet been filed. 

It was the duty of the appellant to have asked for a copy of the complaint from the counsel for the complainant, in case it was not received or supplied. The appellant merely wanted to delay the proceedings, they said.

The Commission said that as the copy of the complaint was not served upon the appellant or its counsel, the written statement could not be filed in time and accordingly, prayer was made on July 19, 2024 seeking further time for the purpose. However, the same was declined by the Commission while observing that it was an attempt on the part of the appellant to delay the proceedings.

While foreclosing the right of the appellant to file the written statement, six weeks’ time was granted to the complainants to file affidavit in evidence and matter was posted for January 09, 2025. Under these circumstances, if some reasonable time is granted to the appellant to file the written statement and complainant to file replication thereof, the pleadings would be complete before the next date of hearing fixed and even affidavit of evidence can be filed by the complainants before that date, the court said.

The court said that the Constitution bench had opined that the commencing point of limitation of 30 days would be from the date of receipt of the notice accompanied with the complaint by the opposite party and not on mere receipt of the notice of the complaint. 

In the case, the bench said, the Commission had put the onus on the appellant to have not made any attempt to get the copy of the complaint. 

However, the fact remains that the Commission merely recorded in its order on February 06, 2024 that the notice was accepted by the counsel for the appellant in Court and he was granted time to file the vakalatnama and written statement. 

"The order does not record that copy of the complaint has been supplied by the counsel for the complainants to the counsel for the opposite party No.1/the appellant herein. Any such observation by the Commission in its order would have clinched the issue. It is not a case where along with the notice, copy of the complaint was accompanied," the bench said.

The apex court permitted the appellant to file the written statement on or before October 14, 2024, subject to payment of costs of Rs 1,00,000 each to respondent Nos 1 to 31/complainants. 

Case Title: Ricardo Constructions Pvt Ltd Vs Ravi Kuckian & Others