P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

Daddy's Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. vs. Manisha Bhargava and Ors. - (Supreme Court) (11 Feb 2021)

Consumer fora has no jurisdiction to accept the written statement beyond the period of 45 days

MANU/SC/0072/2021

Consumer

The Petitioners have preferred the present special leave petition against the impugned order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (‘National Commission’) in First Appeal, by which the National Commission has dismissed the said appeal confirming the order passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ( ‘State Commission’) rejecting the application filed by the Petitioners herein seeking condonation of delay in filing the written version/written statement to the consumer complaint.

By order, the State Commission rejected the application filed by the Petitioners herein seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statement/written version to the consumer complaint. It is not in dispute that the written version/written statement was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, i.e., beyond the period of 45 days. It is not in dispute that, as per the provisions of the Act, the written version/written statement is required to be filed within 30 days and the same can be extended by a further period of 15 days. The order passed by the State Commission came to be confirmed by the National Commission. Hence, the present special leave petition.

As rightly observed by the National Commission, there was no mandate that in all the cases where the written statement was submitted beyond the stipulated period of 45 days, the delay must be condoned and the written statement must be taken on record. It was left to the concerned fora to accept the written statement beyond the stipulated period of 45 days in an appropriate case. As observed by the National Commission that, despite sufficient time granted, the written statement was not filed within the prescribed period of limitation.

Therefore, the National Commission has considered the aspect of condonation of delay on merits also. In any case, in view of the earlier decision of this Court in the case of J.J. Merchant v. Shrinath Chaturvedi, and the subsequent authoritative decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., consumer fora has no jurisdiction and/or power to accept the written statement beyond the period of 45 days. There is no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned National Commission. Petition dismissed.

Tags : WRITTEN STATEMENT   DELAY   CONDONATION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved