In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India ruled that all applications for condonation of delay filed before March 4, 2020, must be decided on their merits. The decision, delivered by a Bench comprising Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, sets aside a previous order by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) and directs the Commission to adjudicate the case on its merits.
Background of the Case
The case, titled Dr. Vijay Dixit & Ors. v. Pagadal Krishna Mohan & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 1970 of 2020), arose from a consumer complaint filed by the respondent, Pagadal Krishna Mohan, before the NCDRC on May 12, 2015. The complaint sought compensation of INR 47.36 crore for alleged medical negligence and unfair trade practices during a surgical procedure conducted on the respondent’s wife, who subsequently died.
The NCDRC issued a notice to the appellants (Dr. Vijay Dixit and others) on May 14, 2015, and the appellants were required to file their written statement within 30 days. However, the appellants filed their statement, along with an application for condonation of delay, on April 12, 2016 — 285 days beyond the statutory period. The NCDRC dismissed their right to file the written statement due to the delay.
Aggrieved by the NCDRC’s decision, the appellants approached the Supreme Court, which converted the Special Leave Petition into Civil Appeal No. 1970 of 2020.
Legal Issues Involved
The case primarily revolved around the interpretation and application of Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which prescribes a statutory period for filing written statements in response to consumer complaints. The key legal issues were:
1. Interpretation of Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986: Whether the statutory period for filing a written statement could be extended beyond the stipulated 45 days.
2. Impact of the Constitution Bench Decision in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (P) Ltd. (2020) 5 SCC 757: The Constitution Bench had ruled that the 45-day period for filing written statements under Section 13 is mandatory and must be complied with. However, the decision was to operate prospectively from March 4, 2020.
3. Conflicting Decisions on Condonation of Delay: Several conflicting judgments from different Benches of the Supreme Court, such as in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mampee Timbers & Hardwares (P) Ltd. (2021) and Daddy’s Builders (P) Ltd. v. Manisha Bhargava (2021), created ambiguity about whether applications for condonation of delay could be considered beyond the 45-day limit.
Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court, in its judgment, clarified that any application for condonation of delay filed before March 4, 2020, should not be summarily dismissed and must be decided on its merits. The Court noted that the Constitution Bench’s decision in New India Assurance 2 would operate prospectively and would not affect cases that were pending or decided before March 4, 2020.
The Court relied on the judgment in Diamond Exports v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2022) 4 SCC 169, which had reconciled the divergent views on this issue. The judgment observed:
“The decision in Daddy’s Builders would not affect applications that were pending or decided before 04.03.2020. Such applications for condonation would be entitled to the benefit of the position in Mampee Timbers & Hardwares, which directed Consumer Fora to render a decision on merits.”
Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, delivering the judgment, stated:
“The application(s) seeking condonation of delay preferred before the consumer fora prior to 04.03.2020 must be decided on merits; and ought not to be summarily dismissed.”
Key Observations of the Court
– The Supreme Court emphasized the prospective nature of the decision in New India Assurance 2 and clarified that it would not affect cases filed before March 4, 2020.
– It upheld the principle that applications for condonation of delay should not be dismissed without consideration of their merits.
– The judgment also highlighted the need for consistency and clarity in interpreting statutory provisions related to procedural timelines.
Counsel Representing the Parties
The appellants, Dr. Vijay Dixit and others, were represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, along with Advocates Mr. Dushyant Dave and Ms. Indira Jaising. The respondents were represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, assisted by Advocates Ms. Meenakshi Arora and Mr. Kapil Sibal.
