In this recent ruling, the Supreme Court emphasized the need for a fair adjudication of applications pertaining to delay of condonation which are submitted before the landmark 2020 decision in ‘New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (P) Ltd.’. The Court directed the NCDRC to decide on a 285-day delay in filing of a written statement, which exceeded the statutory 45-day period as provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Since the application was filed prior to the 2020 Constitution Bench ruling, the Court ruled that such cases should not be summarily dismissed but should rather be decided on their merits. This judgment, reinforced by subsequent rulings, resolved earlier conflicts and clarified that such applications filed before 04.03.2020 must be given due consideration, reaffirming the principles of procedural fairness and justice. Further, this article carries out a comprehensive analysis of this judgment.
Brief Facts of the Case
The appeal in the instant matter stems from an NCDRC order dated 22.07.2016 in Consumer Complaint No. 280 of 2015, where the Appellant’s right to submit a written statement was forfeited due to failure to comply with the statutory timeline as provided under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The case originated from a complaint filed by the Respondent on 12.05.2015, seeking Rs. 47,36,25,000 as compensation for the alleged medical negligence leading to the death of his wife during a left thoracotomy surgery. Accordingly, on 14.05.2015, the NCDRC issued a notice to the Appellant regarding the complaint.
The Appellants received the aforesaid notice on 27.05.2015 and were required to file their written statement (WS) within 30 days i.e., by 28.06.2015. However, they filed their WS, along with an application for condonation of delay on 12.04.2016 which was 285 days beyond the allowed period. Consequently, the NCDRC, through the impugned order, barred the Appellants from filing their WS for exceeding the statutory timeline under Section 13. Being aggrieved with this decision, the Appellants filed Special Leave Petition No. 36048 of 2016, that is now converted into the present appeal.
Thereafter on 16.12.2016, the Apex court directed the Appellants to pay Rs. 50,000 to the Respondents in the ongoing appeal, allowing the NCDRC to proceed with the case or permitting the Respondents to seek a stay. However, when the Respondents declined to accept the costs, the NCDRC paused the proceedings in line with the apex Court’s order.
Issues
The primary issue involved in the present matter is whether the NCDRC was justified in disallowing the Appellants from filing their written statement due to a delay of 285 days, which exceeded the statutory period under Section 13. The said issue implores if the delay should have been condoned, balancing procedural deadlines against the Appellants’ right to defend.
Analysis of The Case
In the meantime, a co-ordinate bench of the Apex Court observed conflicting opinions in cases such as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (P) Ltd., J.J. Merchant (Dr) v. Shrinath Chaturvedi, Kailash v. Nanhku, Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India, and Topline Shoes Limited v. Corporation Bank. To resolve this, the Court referred similar appeals to a Constitution Bench to clarify the application of Section 13 of the 1986 Act. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (P) Ltd.,the Constitution Bench held that the requirements of Section 13 must be followed strictly but it would be applied prospectively due to past conflicting judgments. Meanwhile, in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mampee Timbers & Hardwares (P) Ltd[7]., the Court allowed consumer forums to accept written statements filed beyond the 45-day period in certain cases. This approach was adopted for delay condonation applications filed prior to the 2020 decision.
However, the division bench of the Supreme Court in Daddy’s Builders (P) Ltd. v. Manisha Bhargava[8] took a divergent stance regarding the acceptance of delayed written statements, conflicting with previous judgments. To resolve this, a three-judge bench in Diamond Exports v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. was tasked with reconciling these differing views, particularly regarding cases pending or initiated before the New India Assurance 2020 decision given on 04.03.2020. The Court in Diamond Exports held that the ruling in Daddy’s Builders would not apply to delay condonation applications pending or decided before 04.03.2020, affirming that such cases would be governed by the leniency granted in the Mampee Timbers decision.
For the instant matter, the Hon’ble Court held that the NCDRC’s order was issued on 22.07.2016, which was before the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in New India Assurance. The Appellants argued that, given the prospective effect of this decision and the Supreme Court’s guidance in Diamond Exports, the appeal should be granted, directing the NCDRC to decide the delay condonation application on its merits. The Court therefore concluded that the Constitution Bench’s ruling in New India Assurance 2020 decision and the subsequent findings in Diamond Exports clarified that delay condonation applications filed before 04.03.2020 must be judged on their merits rather than being dismissed outright. Accordingly, the Court set aside the Impugned order and allowed the appeal.
Conclusion
This judgment underscores the principle that delay condonation applications should be assessed on their merits rather than being automatically dismissed due to procedural lapses. It emphasizes that, for applications filed before the 2020 decision in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (P) Ltd (Supra)., fairness demands that such delays be evaluated individually, respecting the principles of justice and procedural equity. This approach aims to balance strict adherence to deadlines with the right of parties to present their defences, thereby ensuring that justice is served even in cases of procedural delays.
