22 August 2024 Civil Appeals >> Civil & Consumer Law   |   Consumer Protection Act >> Consumer Rights  

In a significant decision in the matter of Dr. Vijay Dixit & Others v/s Pagadal Krishna Mohan & Others, affecting the handling of consumer complaints, the Supreme Court has provided clarity on the procedural requirements for filing written statements in such cases. This ruling arises from an appeal against an order issued by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dated July 22, 2016. The NCDRC had previously forfeited the right of the appellant to file a written statement due to a delay beyond the statutory period prescribed by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Background of the Case:

The dispute began when the respondent filed a consumer complaint (No. 280 of 2015) on May 12, 2015, seeking compensation of INR 47,36,25,000 for alleged medical negligence resulting in the death of his wife. The NCDRC issued a notice to the appellants on May 14, 2015, which was received by them on May 27, 2015. According to Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, the appellants were required to file their written statement within 30 days, i.e., by June 28, 2015. However, they missed this deadline and only filed their written statement on April 12, 2016, accompanied by a request for condonation of delay. The NCDRC, citing the failure to adhere to the statutory period, closed the right of the appellants to file their written statement. The appellants, aggrieved by this decision, filed a Special Leave Petition, which has now been converted into the current appeal.

Key Developments:

The Supreme Court initially issued a notice in the appeal on December 16, 2016, and instructed the appellants to pay INR 50,000 as costs to the respondents. This led to the NCDRC either proceeding with the complaint or staying the proceedings based on the respondents' consent. However, further proceedings were kept in abeyance as the respondents did not accept the costs.

A critical aspect of this case involves conflicting opinions from various judgments concerning the interpretation of Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act. Notably, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (P) Ltd. (2020) clarified that the rigors of Section 13 must be complied with mandatorily, though this decision was made to operate prospectively. Subsequent rulings, including Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mampee Timbers & Hardwares (P) Ltd. (2021), allowed consumer forums to accept written statements beyond the stipulated period under certain conditions. However, the decision in Daddy's Builders (P) Ltd. v. Manisha Bhargava (2021) reaffirmed the strict adherence to the 45-day limit, leading to further confusion.

In Diamond Exports v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2022), the Supreme Court reconciled these divergent views, specifying that applications for condonation of delay pending or decided before March 4, 2020, should be evaluated based on the guidelines provided in Mampee Timbers.

Court's Decision:

Given that the NCDRC's order was issued before the landmark decision in New India Assurance 2 and in light of Diamond Exports, the Supreme Court ruled that the NCDRC must decide the application for condonation of delay on its merits rather than dismissing it outright. The Court emphasized that decisions made prior to the New India Assurance 2 should be reviewed with consideration of the principles established in Mampee Timbers. The Supreme Court has thus overturned the NCDRC's decision and directed it to adjudicate the condonation application based on its merits. This ruling ensures that procedural issues do not preclude the substantive resolution of consumer disputes.

Conclusion:

This Supreme Court ruling is pivotal for future consumer disputes, reaffirming that procedural delays should be handled with due consideration of the merits of the case. It underscores the Court's commitment to ensuring fair adjudication and resolving conflicting judicial interpretations, ultimately benefiting the consumer grievance redressal system.

  Consumer Protection Act, 1986