The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a recent case of Ricardo Constructions Pvt Ltd. v. Ravi Kuckian and Ors., 2024 (SC) 744, held that the Right to file Written Statement shall not be foreclosed on account of non-supply of the consumer complaint copy to the party. The Supreme Court observed that failure to file the same on account of lack of complaint is not attributable to the party in light of the fact that the party is diligent and not related to malafide intention to derail and delay the proceedings.

In the ruling delivered by the Division Bench comprising Hon’ble Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Hon’ble Justice Rajesh Bindal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the Appellants to file the Written Statement in view of the fact that the Impugned Order dated 19.07.2024 did not mention the supply of the complaint copy to the counsel of the Appellant but was restricted to grant of time for filing of Vakalatnama and Written Statement. However, the permission to file the Written Statement was allowed subject to certain costs.

The Court observed that it was case where only the notice was supplied which was devoid of complaint copy and was of the view that the it was too harsh to foreclose a party’s right to file written statement in such facts and circumstances.

 

Background of the Case

Ricardo Constructions Pvt Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the Appellant”) filed an appeal against the Impugned Order dated 19.07.2024 passed by the Ld. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. NCDRC”), which foreclosed the right to file a written statement in a consumer complaint filed by the Respondents. The Ld. NCDRC had granted time to the appellant to file a written statement, but the appellant failed to do so within the prescribed period. The Ld. NCDRC then foreclosed this right, claiming that the appellant failed to file the same within the limitation period to file the written statement.

 

Appellant’s Arguments

Non-receipt of Complaint

The appellant in the present case argued that the foreclosure of the right to file written statement is attributable to non-supply of the complaint copy and not due to the failure at the part of the Appellant. It was contended that lack of complaint copy leaves the Appellant helpless to prepare their defense due to the unawareness about the allegations and cause of action.

No Intent to Delay

The appellant further contended that the present appeal is not an attempt to derail or delay the pending consumer proceedings. However, the failure to file the written statement in the consumer complaint proceedings was not deliberate or aimed at delaying the case. The sole reason behind the failure was owing to lack of complaint copy.

The appellant had further relied on the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., 2020 5 SCC 757, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the limitation period for filing a written statement starts from the date of receiving the complaint, not merely the notice. It was observed that in the absence of complaint copy, the party is not in a position to file its written statement.

 

Respondents’ Arguments

Time Limit for Filing Written Statement

The respondents stressed on the strict limitation period to file the Written Statement as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which cannot be extended beyond the 45-days period. It is provided that the 45-days time period already provides a buffer or additional time of 15 days and had failed to do so. Therefore, as per the provisions of the Act, the Appellant cannot be given any further time.

No Steps Taken by Appellant

The respondents further argued that if the Appellant had not received the copy, then the same ought to be requested or asked to be supplied to them. At a later date, they cannot contend that the complaint copy was not provided to them which shows nothing but is merely an attempt to delay the proceedings.

 

Analysis of the Court

The Hon’ble Court observed that the counsel for the Appellant appeared on the very first day of hearing which was listed on 06.02.2024 and took receipt of the notice. Furthermore, the counsel for the Appellant took receipt despite not having any Vakalatnama executed in his favour which otherwise, was fixed for first hearing fixed by the commission on 19.07.2024 after such notice.

It was observed that neither the appellant nor their counsel was supplied with the complaint copy thereby rendering them incapable. It shows that there was no effort on the part of the Appellant to delay or an attempt to delay the proceedings.

The Hon’ble Court clarified that the period for limitation to starts from the date of receipt of notice only when the same is accompanied by the complaint copy. Similar to the application of provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the provision of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 also applies the same way. The period of limitation starts from the date of receipt of notice accompanied with copy of the consumer complaint. Therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the Ld. NCDRC was too harsh in foreclosing the right of the Appellant to file the Written Statement based on conjectures and surmises. It found that while the appellant had accepted notice, there was no clear evidence that the complaint copy had been served. The Court ruled that the limitation for filing a written statement begins only after receiving the complaint copy, in line with the Constitution Bench ruling in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd..

However, despite allowing the right to file the written statement, the Court directed that the same be permitted only subject to the cost of Rs.1,00,000/- to each Respondent.