# NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD v. HILLI MULTIPURPOSE COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD

- **Citation:** [2020] 5 S.C.R. 429
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2020-03-04
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. 10941-10942 of 2013
- **Bench:** Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M. R. Shah, S. Ravindra Bhat
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-v-hilli-multipurpose-cold-storage-pvt-ltd-34487
- **Pages:** 36

## Headnote

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - s. 13(2)(a) - District Forum
to extend the time for filing of response to the complaint beyond the
period of 15 days, in addition to 30 days - Power of - Held: A bare
reading of s. 13(2)(a) of the Act makes it clear that the copy of the
complaint which is to be sent to the opposite party, is to be with the
direction to give his version of (or response to) the case (or
complaint) within a period of 30 days - It further provides that
such period of 30 days can be extended by the District Forum, but
not beyond 15 days - The legislature in its wisdom has provided for
filing of complaint or appeals beyond the period specified under
the relevant provisions of the Act and Regulations, if there is sufficient
cause given by the party, which has to be to the satisfaction of the
concerned authority - No such discretion has been provided for
u/s. 13(2)(a) of the Act for filing a response to the complaint beyond
the extended period of 45 days (30 days plus 15 days) - By
specifically enacting a provision under sub-section(3) of s. 13 with
a specific clarification that violation of the principles of natural
justice shall not be called in question where the procedure prescribed
under sub-sections (1) and (2) of s. 13 of the Consumer Protection
Act has been followed or complied with, the intention of the
legislature is clear that mere denial of further extension of time for
filing the response (by the opposite party) would not amount to
denial or violation of the principles of natural justice - This provision
of s. 13(3) reinforces the time limit specified in s. 13(2)(a) of the Act
- Therefore, the intention of the legislature is absolutely clear that
the provision of s. 13(2)(a) of the Act in specifying the time limit for
filing the response to the complaint is mandatory, and not directory.
429
[2020] 5 S.C.R. 429
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
430
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 5 S.C.R.
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - s. 13(2) - Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 - Or. VIII, r.1 - It was contended that the language
of s. 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act is pari materia to Or.
VIII, r. 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and if time can be
extended for filing of written submissions in a suit under the
aforesaid provision of the Code, the same would apply to the filing
of response to a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act as
well, and hence the provision of s. 13(2)(a) of the Consumer
Protection Act would be directory and not mandatory - Held: It is
noteworthy that Or. VIII, r. 1 r/w. Or. VIII, r. 10 prescribes that the
maximum period of 120 days provided u/or. VIII, r. 1 is actually not
meant to be mandatory but only directory - Or. VIII, r. 10 mandates
that where written statement is not filed within the time provided
u/or. VIII, r. 1 " The Court shall pronounce the judgment against
him or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit" - It is
clearly indicative of the fact that the discretions is left with the Court
to grant time beyond the maximum period of 120 days, which may
be in exceptional cases - It is pertinent to note that non-filing of
written statement u/or. VIII, r. 1 of the Code is not followed by any
consequence within the time so provided in the Code - Whereas,
sub-section (2)(b)(ii) of s. 13 of the Consumer Protection Act clearly
provides for the consequence of the complaint to be proceeded exparte against the opposite party, if the opposite party omits or fails
to represent his case within the time given - Once consequences are
provided for not filing the response to the complaint within the time
specified, and it is further provided that proceedings complying
with the procedure laid down under sub section (1) and (2) of s. 13
of the Consumer Protection Act shall not be called in question in
any court on the ground that the principles of natural justice have
not been complied with, the intention of the legislature is absolutely
clear that the provisions of s.13(2)(a) of the Act in specify

## Text

_Characters 0–39,878 of 79,567. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39878 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
429
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
v.
HILLI MULTIPURPOSE COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 10941-10942 of 2013)
MARCH 04, 2020
[ARUN MISHRA, INDIRA BANERJEE,
VINEET SARAN, M. R. SHAH AND
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - s. 13(2)(a) - District Forum
to extend the time for filing of response to the complaint beyond the
period of 15 days, in addition to 30 days - Power of - Held: A bare
reading of s. 13(2)(a) of the Act makes it clear that the copy of the
complaint which is to be sent to the opposite party, is to be with the
direction to give his version of (or response to) the case (or
complaint) within a period of 30 days - It further provides that
such period of 30 days can be extended by the District Forum, but
not beyond 15 days - The legislature in its wisdom has provided for
filing of complaint or appeals beyond the period specified under
the relevant provisions of the Act and Regulations, if there is sufficient
cause given by the party, which has to be to the satisfaction of the
concerned authority - No such discretion has been provided for
u/s. 13(2)(a) of the Act for filing a response to the complaint beyond
the extended period of 45 days (30 days plus 15 days) - By
specifically enacting a provision under sub-section(3) of s. 13 with
a specific clarification that violation of the principles of natural
justice shall not be called in question where the procedure prescribed
under sub-sections (1) and (2) of s. 13 of the Consumer Protection
Act has been followed or complied with, the intention of the
legislature is clear that mere denial of further extension of time for
filing the response (by the opposite party) would not amount to
denial or violation of the principles of natural justice - This provision
of s. 13(3) reinforces the time limit specified in s. 13(2)(a) of the Act
- Therefore, the intention of the legislature is absolutely clear that
the provision of s. 13(2)(a) of the Act in specifying the time limit for
filing the response to the complaint is mandatory, and not directory.
429
[2020] 5 S.C.R. 429
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
430
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 5 S.C.R.
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - s. 13(2) - Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 - Or. VIII, r.1 - It was contended that the language
of s. 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act is pari materia to Or.
VIII, r. 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and if time can be
extended for filing of written submissions in a suit under the
aforesaid provision of the Code, the same would apply to the filing
of response to a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act as
well, and hence the provision of s. 13(2)(a) of the Consumer
Protection Act would be directory and not mandatory - Held: It is
noteworthy that Or. VIII, r. 1 r/w. Or. VIII, r. 10 prescribes that the
maximum period of 120 days provided u/or. VIII, r. 1 is actually not
meant to be mandatory but only directory - Or. VIII, r. 10 mandates
that where written statement is not filed within the time provided
u/or. VIII, r. 1 " The Court shall pronounce the judgment against
him or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit" - It is
clearly indicative of the fact that the discretions is left with the Court
to grant time beyond the maximum period of 120 days, which may
be in exceptional cases - It is pertinent to note that non-filing of
written statement u/or. VIII, r. 1 of the Code is not followed by any
consequence within the time so provided in the Code - Whereas,
sub-section (2)(b)(ii) of s. 13 of the Consumer Protection Act clearly
provides for the consequence of the complaint to be proceeded exparte against the opposite party, if the opposite party omits or fails
to represent his case within the time given - Once consequences are
provided for not filing the response to the complaint within the time
specified, and it is further provided that proceedings complying
with the procedure laid down under sub section (1) and (2) of s. 13
of the Consumer Protection Act shall not be called in question in
any court on the ground that the principles of natural justice have
not been complied with, the intention of the legislature is absolutely
clear that the provisions of s.13(2)(a) of the Act in specifying the
time limit for filing the response to the complaint is mandatory, and
not directory - The provisions of Or.VIII, r.1 of the Code are directory
not mandatory, however, it would not be applicable to cases dealing
with the provisions of s. 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, or
such other enactment wherein a provision akin to s.13(2) is there
and the consequences are also provided.
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - s. 13 - Limitation of 30
days u/s. 13 of the 1986 Act - Commencing point of - Held: Sub-
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
431
sections(2) (a) and (2)(b) of s. 13 of the Consumer Protection Act
specify that it is a copy of the complaint which is to be given to the
opposite party directing him to give his version of the case within a
period of 30 days or such extended period, not exceeding 15 days
- As such, from the aforesaid provision itself, it is clear that it is the
copy of the admitted complaint which is to be served, after which
the period to file the response would commence - Further, Regulation
10 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 also specified
the procedure of issuing notice, which should be accompanied by
copy of the complaint - Therefore, the commencing point of limitation
of 30 days u/s. 13 of the Consumer Protection Act would be from
the date of receipt of the notice accompanied with the complaint by
the opposite party, and not mere receipt of the notice of the
complaint.
Answering the reference, the Court
HELD: Whether the District Forum has power to extend
the time for filing of response to the complaint beyond the period
of 15 days, in addition to 30 days, as envisaged under Section
13(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act?
1. A bare reading of Section 13(2)(a) of the Act makes it
clear that the copy of the complaint which is to be sent to the
opposite party, is to be with the direction to give his version of
(or response to) the case (or complaint) within a period of 30
days. It further provides that such period of 30 days can be
extended by the District Forum, but not beyond 15 days.
[Para 8][447-C-D]
2. Sub-Section (2)(a) of Section 13 of the Consumer
Protection Act provides for the opposite party to give his response
'within a period of 30 days or such extended period not exceeding
15 days as may be granted by the District Forum'. The intention of
the legislature seems to be very clear that the opposite party
would get the time of 30 days, and in addition another 15 days at
the discretion of the Forum to file its response. No further
discretion of granting time beyond 45 days is intended under the
Act. [Para 13][448-D-E]
3. The legislature in its wisdom has provided for filing of
complaint or appeals beyond the period specified under the
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. v. HILLI MULTIPURPOSE
COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
432
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 5 S.C.R.
relevant provisions of the Act and Regulations, if there is sufficient
cause given by the party, which has to be to the satisfaction of the
concerned authority. No such discretion has been provided for
under Section 13(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act for filing
a response to the complaint beyond the extended period of 45
days (30 days plus 15 days). Had the legislature not wanted to
make such provision mandatory but only directory, the provision
for further extension of the period for filing the response beyond
45 days would have been provided, as has been provided for in
the cases of filing of complaint and appeals. To carve out an
exception in a specific provision of the statute is not within the
jurisdiction of the Courts, and if it is so done, it would amount to
legislating or inserting a provision into the statute, which is not
permissible. [Para 17][449-G-H; 450-A]
4. By specifically enacting a provision under sub-Section
(3) of Section 13, with a specific clarification that violation of the
principles of natural justice shall not be called in question where
the procedure prescribed under sub-Sections (1) and (2) of Section
13 of the Consumer Protection Act has been followed or complied
with, the intention of the legislature is clear that mere denial of
further extension of time for filing the response (by the opposite
party) would not amount to denial or violation of the principles of
natural justice. This provision of Section 13(3) reinforces the time
limit specified in Section 13(2)(a) of the Act. [Para 17][450-B-C]
5. It is true that 'justice hurried is justice buried'. But in the
same breath it is also said that 'justice delayed is justice denied'.
The legislature has chosen the latter, and for a good reason. It
goes with the objective sought to be achieved by the Consumer
Protection Act, which is to provide speedy justice to the
consumer. It is not that sufficient time to file a response to the
complaint has been denied to the opposite party. It is just that
discretion of extension of time beyond 15 days (after the 30 days
period) has been curtailed and consequences for the same have
been provided under Section 13(2)(b)(ii) of the Consumer
Protection Act. It may be that in some cases the opposite party
could face hardship because of such provision, yet for achieving
the object of the Act, which is speedy and simple redressal of
consumer disputes, hardship which may be caused to a party has
to be ignored. [Para 20][452-B-D]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
433
6. It has been further contended that the language of
Section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act is pari materia to
Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and if
time can be extended for filing of written submission in a suit
under the aforesaid provision of the Code, the same would apply
to the filing of response to complaint under the Consumer
Protection Act as well, and hence the provision of Section 13(2)(a)
of the Consumer Protection Act would be directory and not
mandatory. In this regard, what is noteworthy is that Regulation
26 of the Consumer Protection Regulation, 2005, clearly
mandates that endeavour is to be made to avoid the use of the
provisions of the Code except for such provisions, which have
been referred to in the Consumer Protection Act and the
Regulations framed thereunder, which is provided for in respect
of specific matters enumerated in Section 13(4) of the Consumer
Protection Act. It is pertinent to note that non-filing of written
statement under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code is not followed
by any consequence of such non-filing within the time so provided
in the Code. Now, while considering the relevant provisions of
the Code, it is noteworthy that Order VIII Rule 1 read with Order
VIII Rule 10 prescribes that the maximum period of 120 days
provided under Order VIII Rule 1 is actually not meant to be
mandatory, but only directory. Order VIII Rule 10 mandates that
where written statement is not filed within the time provided under
Order VIII Rule 1 "the court shall pronounce the judgment against
him, or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit". A
harmonious construction of these provisions is clearly indicative
of the fact that the discretion is left with the Court to grant time
beyond the maximum period of 120 days, which may be in
exceptional cases. On the other hand, sub-Section (2)(b)(ii) of
Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act clearly provides for
the consequence of the complaint to be proceeded ex parte against
the opposite party, if the opposite party omits or fails to represent
his case within the time given. [Para 21][452-E-H; 453-A-B]
7. Once consequences are provided for not filing the
response to the complaint within the time specified, and it is
further provided that proceedings complying with the procedure
laid down under sub Section (1) and (2) of Section 13 of the
Consumer Protection Act shall not be called in question in any
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. v. HILLI MULTIPURPOSE
COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
434
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 5 S.C.R.
Court on the ground that the principles of natural justice have
not been complied with, the intention of the legislature is
absolutely clear that the provision of sub-Section 2(a) of Section
13 of the Act in specifying the time limit for filing the response to
the complaint is mandatory, and not directory. [Para 21]
[453-F-G]
8. After noticing that there were delays in deciding the
complaints by the District Forum, the legislature inserted subSection (3A) of Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act
providing for a time limit for deciding the complaints. From this
it is amply clear that the intention of the legislature was, and has
always been, for expeditious disposal of the complaints. By
providing for extension of time for disposal of the cases filed, for
reasons to be recorded, the legislature has provided for a
discretion to the Forum that wherever necessary, the extension
of the time can be provided for, and where such further extension
is not to be granted [as in the case of Section 13(2)(a)], the
legislature has consciously not provided for the same, so as to
achieve the object of the Act. [Para 22][453-H; 454-A-B]
What would be the commencing point of limitation of 30
days under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986?
9. For deciding this question, this Court may first analyse
the relevant provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and the
Regulations framed thereunder. Sub-Sections (2)(a) and (2)(b) of
Section13 of the Consumer Protection Act specify that it is the
copy of the complaint which is to given to the opposite party
directing him to give his version of the case within a period of 30
days or such extended period, not exceeding 15 days. As such,
from the aforesaid provision itself, it is clear that it is the copy of
the admitted complaint which is to be served, after which the
period to file the response would commence. Further, Regulation
10 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 also specifies
the procedure of issuing notice, which should be accompanied by
copy of the complaint. Regulation 10(5) clearly mentions that
"along with the notice, copies of the complaint, memorandum of
grounds of appeal, petitions as the case may be and other documents
filed shall be served upon the opposite party(ies)/respondent(s)".
The same would also make it clear that it is on service of a copy
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
435
of the complaint that the period of limitation for filing the response
by the opposite party shall commence. [Para 37][461-F-H;
462-A]
10. Now reverting to the provisions of the Consumer
Protection Act, a conjoint reading of Clauses (a) and (b) of subSection (2) of Section 13 would make the position absolutely clear
that the commencing point of limitation of 30 days, under the
aforesaid provisions, would be from the date of receipt of notice
accompanied by a copy of the complaint, and not merely receipt
of the notice, as the response has to be given, within the stipulated
time, to the averments made in the complaint and unless a copy
of the complaint is served on the opposite party, he would not be
in a position to furnish its reply. Thus, mere service of notice,
without service of the copy of the complaint, would not suffice
and cannot be the commencing point of 30 days under the aforesaid
Section of the Act. This Court may, however, clarify that the
objection of not having received a copy of the complaint along
with the notice should be raised on the first date itself and not
thereafter, otherwise if permitted to be raised at any point later
would defeat the very purpose of the Act, which is to provide
simple and speedy redressal of consumer disputes.
[Para 40][463-D-F]
11. To conclude, the answer to the first question is that the
District Forum has no power to extend the time for filing the
response to the complaint beyond the period of 15 days in addition
to 30 days as is envisaged under Section 13 of the Consumer
Protection Act; and the answer to the second question is
that
the commencing point of limitation of 30 days under Section 13
of the Consumer Protection Act would be from the date of receipt
of the notice accompanied with the complaint by the opposite
party, and not mere receipt of the notice of the complaint.
[Para 41][463-G-H; 464-A]
Dr. J.J. Merchant v. Shrinath Chaturvedi (2002) 6 SCC
635 : [2002] 1 Suppl. SCR 469 - held correct law.
Rohitash Kumar v. Om Prakash Sharma (2013) 11 SCC
451 : [2012] 13 SCR 47; Laxminarayan R. Bhattad v.
State of Maharashtra (2003) 5 SCC 413 : [2003] 3
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. v. HILLI MULTIPURPOSE
COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
436
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 5 S.C.R.
SCR 409; P.M. Latha v. State of Kerala (2003) 3 SCC
541 : [2003] 2 SCR 653 ; Nasiruddin v. Sita Ram
Agarwal (2003) 2 SCC 577 : [2003] 1 SCR 634 ; E.
Palanisamy v. Palanisamy (2003) 1 SCC 123 ; India
House v. Kishan N. Lalwani (2003) 9 SCC 393 : [2002]
5 Suppl. SCR 522 ; Union of India v. Tecco Trichy
Engineers & Contractors (2005) 4 SCC 239 : [2005] 2
SCR 983 - relied on.
Lachmi Narain v. Union of India (1976) 2 SCC 953 :
[1976] 2 SCR 785; Bhikraj Jaipuria v. Union of India
AIR 1962 SC 113: [1962] 2 SCR 880; Fairgrowth
Investments Ltd. v. Custodian (2004) 11 SCC 472:
[2004] 5 Suppl. SCR 505; Popat Bahiru Govardhane
v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2013) 10 SCC 765:
[2013] 8 SCR 241 - referred to.
SCG Contracts (India) Private Limited v. K.S Chamankar
Infrastructure Private Limited (2019) 12 SCC 210:
[2019] 3 SCR 1050; Topline Shoes Ltd. v. Corporation
Bank (2002) 6 SCC 33 : [2002] 3 SCR 1167 - referred
to.
Kailash v. Nanhku (2005) 4 SCC 480: [2005] 3 SCR
289; Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India
(2005) 6 SCC 344 : [2005] 1 Suppl. SCR 929 ; NIA v.
Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (2015) 16 SCC 22;
Nahar Enterprises v. Hyderabad Allwyn Ltd. (2007) 9
SCC 466 : [2007] 2 SCR 413 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1976] 2 SCR 785
referred to
Para 18
[1962] 2 SCR 880
referred to
Para 18
[2004] 5 Suppl. SCR 505
referred to
Para 18
[2013] 8 SCR 241
referred to
Para 18
[2012] 13 SCR 47
relied on
Para 18
[2003] 3 SCR 409
relied on
Para 19
[2003] 2 SCR 653
relied on
Para 19
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
437
[2003] 1 SCR 634
relied on
Para 19
(2003) 1 SCC 123
relied on
Para 19
[2002] 5 Suppl. SCR 522
relied on
Para 19
[2019] 3 SCR 1050
referred to
Para 23
[2002] 3 SCR 1167
referred to
Para 24
[2002] 1 Suppl. SCR 469
relied on
Para 24
[2005] 3 SCR 289
referred to
Para 27
[2005] 1 Suppl. SCR 929
referred to
Para 27
(2015) 16 SCC 22
referred to
Para 27
[2007] 2 SCR 413
referred to
Para 38
[2005] 2 SCR 983
relied on
Para 39
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1094110942 of 2013.
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.08.2013 and 30.09.2013
of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi
in Consumer Complaint No. 52 of 2013 and in Review Application
No. 309 of 2013 respectively
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 8343 of 2014, 1083-1084, 1085-1086, 4473, 6095,
5485, 10129, 10127, 10333, 10858 of 2016, 780, 4457, 2339, 4510, 5219,
5574-5575, 7100, 5578-5579, 10226, 12456 of 2017, 1964, 1965, 1968,
1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980,
1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985-1986 of 2020.
Dhruv Agrawal, Sr. Adv., Lav Kumar Agrawal, Ms. Usha Garg,
Vaibhav Saini, Akhil Saini, Ms. Shashi Kant Mehrotra, Kundan Kumar
Lal, Shivam Singh, Gopal Singh, Harpreet Singh Gupta, Jaideep Khanna,
Aditya Raina, Udian Sharma, Vikas Mehta, Ms. Malvika Kalra, Apoorv
Khator, Adith Nair, Hemant Gupta, Ms. Sunakshi Gupta, Alok Sharma,
Tushar Sharma, Jinendra Jain, Vishnu Mehra, A.N. Mehrotra, Ms. Simran
Mehrotra, Anant M., Ms. Manjeet Chawla, Nishit Agrawal, Harsh Mishra,
Shrey Kapoor (for M/s. Aura & Co.), Seshatalpa Sai Bandaru,
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. v. HILLI MULTIPURPOSE
COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
438
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 5 S.C.R.
Udayaditya Banerjee, Abhijit Sengupta, Atul Nagarajan, Ankit Anandraj
Shah, Jibran Tak, Balaji Srinivasan, Alok Kumar, Ms. Somya Yadava,
Ms. Snigdha Singh, Ketul Hanshraj, Kapil Joshi, Ms. Manju Jetley, Vineet
Malhotra, Mohit Paul, Ms. Sunaina Phul, Shubhendu Kaushik, A.K. De,
Ms. Ananya, Zahid Ali, Ms. Deepika Khinder, Pratap Venugopal, Ms.
Surekha Raman, Ms. Ayushi Gaur, Akyil Abraham Roy (for M/s. K.J.
John and Co.), Joseph Aristotle S., Pragyan Sharma, Mudit Makhijani,
P.V. Yogeswaran, Sumit Sinha, Ms. Supriya Juneja, Shekhar Raj Sharma,
Alok Shukla, K. Maruthi Rao, Mrs. K. Radha, Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari,
Robin R. David, Munawwar Naseem, Dheeraj Philip, Febin Mathew,
Ms. Anjana Chandrashekar, Dhawal Mohan, Jayant Mohan, Ms.
Meenakshi Chatterjee, Arun Aggarwal, Ms. Anshika Agarwal, Ms. Shubhi
Agarwal, Ms. Saloni Sharan, Vivek Salathia, Mukesh Kumar Singh,
Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, Mohit Kaushik, Amit, Ashutosh Chaturvedi,
Shantanu Jugtawat, Gurudatta Ankolker, Venkateswara Rao Anumolu,
Chandra Mohan Anisetty, Dr. E. Seshagiri Rao, Maibam N. Singh,
Pramod Dayal, Badri Prasad Singh, Ms. Neha Chaudhary, Sunil K. Khatri,
Sudeep Kumar, Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, Vyom Raghuvanshi, Ms.
Sangya Negi, Viiswastya K. Sharma, O.P. Gaggar, Aditya Gaggar,
Sachindra Karn, Uday Gupta, Hiren Dasan, Chand Qureshi, Ms. Shivani
M. Lal, Hemant Kushwaha, Harish Dasan, M.K. Tripathi, Mrs. Sarla
Chandra, A.N. Arora, Shekhar Raj Sharma, Sateesh Galla, Ms. Usha
Rani Gara, N. Rajaraman, Ms. Ruby Singh Ahuja, Vishal Gehrana, Anmol
Jassal (for M/s. Karanjawala & Co.), Shekhar Kumar, Mrs. Priya Puri,
P.S. Sudheer, Rishi Maheshwari, Mrs. Mayuri Nayyar, Ms. Anne Mathew,
Ms. Shruti Jose, D. Bharat Kumar, Tadimalla Baskar Gowtham, Vishal
Arun, Nitin S. Tambwekar, Seshatalpa Sai Bandaru, Ms. Pritha Srikumar,
S. Mahendran, Amit Shukla, Deva Shukla, Varun Punia, Bhavin R. Bhatia,
Arpit Rai, Amogh Singh, Sanjeev R. Singh, Aviral Kashyap, Ritesh
Agrawal, Tejas Bhatia, Aishwarya Adlakha, Himanshu Shekhar, Kumar
Mihir, Vivek Kumar, Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Gaurav Sharma, Prateek
Bhatia, M. T. George, Ms. Susy Abraham, Johns George, Umesh Kumar
Khaitan, Rahul Gupta, Ranjey Dubey, Ms. Srishti Sharma, Yati Sharma,
Shiv Ram Sharma, Dr. Harish Uppal, Tilshwa Prasad, Adith Nair,
Ms. Anushree Menon, Gagan Gupta, Divya Sharma, Suryajyoti Singh,
Gautam Das, Advs. for the appearing parties.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
439
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
VINEET SARAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The reference made to this Constitution Bench relates to the
grant of time for filing response to a complaint under the provisions of
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act'). The first
question referred is as to whether Section 13(2)(a) of the Consumer
Protection Act, which provides for the respondent/opposite party filing
its response to the complaint within 30 days or such extended period, not
exceeding 15 days, should be read as mandatory or directory; i.e., whether
the District Forum has power to extend the time for filing the response
beyond the period of 15 days, in addition to 30 days. The second
question which is referred is as to what would be the commencing
point of limitation of 30 days stipulated under the aforesaid Section.
3. The first question was referred by a two judge Bench of this
Court vide an Order dated 11.02.2016 passed in Civil Appeal
No(s).1083-1084 of 2016, M/s Bhasin Infotech and Infrastructure
Pvt. Ltd. versus M/s Grand Venezia Buyers Association (Reg), the
relevant portion of which is as under:
"There is an apparent conflict between the decisions of this
Court in Topline Shoes Limited vs. Corporation Bank [(2002)
6 SCC 33], Kailash Vs. Nankhu [(2005) 4 SCC 480], Salem
Advocate Bar Association Vs. Union of India [(2005) 6 SCC
344] on the one hand and J.J. Merchant & Ors. Vs. Shrinath
Chaturvedi [(2002) 6 SCC 635 and NIA Vs. Hilli Multipurpose
Cold Storage [2014 AIOL 4615] on the other in so far as the
power of the Courts to extend time for filing of written
statement/reply to a complaint is concerned. The earlier
mentioned line of decisions take the view that the relevant
provisions including those of Order 8 Rule 1 of the Civil
Procedure Code, 1908 are directory in nature and the Courts
concerned have the power to extend time for filing the written
statement. The second line of decisions which are also of
coordinate Benches however takes a contrary view and hold
that when it comes to power of the Consumer Fora to extend
the time for filing a reply there is no such power.
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. v. HILLI MULTIPURPOSE
COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
440
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 5 S.C.R.
Since the question that falls for determination here often
arises before the Consumer Fora and Commissions all over
the country it will be more appropriate if the conflict is resolved
by an authoritative judgment. Further since the conflict is
between Benches comprising three Judges we deem it fit to
refer these appeals to a five-Judge Bench to resolve the
conflict once and for all. While we do so we are mindful of
the fact that in the ordinary course a two-Judge Bench ought
to make a reference to a three-Judge Bench in the first place
but in the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in
view the fact that the conflict is between coordinate Benches
comprising three Judges a reference to three Judges may not
suffice."
4. The other question has been referred by another Division Bench
of this Court by an Order dated 18.01.2017 passed in this very appeal
being Civil Appeal No(s).10941-10942 of 2013, NIA Vs. Hilli
Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd, the relevant portion of the
judgment is as under:
"..........what is the commencing point of the limitation of 30
days stipulated in Section 13 of the Act is required to be
decided authoritatively. The declaration made in JJ Merchant's
case that the said period is to be reckoned from the date of
the receipt of the notice by the opposite party or complaint
under the Act requires in our humble opinion, a more critical
analysis."
5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length
and have carefully gone through the records.
6. In the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Consumer
Protection Act, in paragraph 4, it has been specifically provided that the
Consumer Protection Act is "To provide speedy and simple redressal
to consumer disputes, a quasi-judicial machinery is sought to be
set up at the district, State and Central levels.......". The Preamble
of the Consumer Protection Act also mentions that the Act is "to provide
for better protection of the interests of the consumers". The
nomenclature of this Act also goes to show that it is for the benefit or
protection of the consumer. From the above, it is evident that the
Consumer Protection Act has been enacted to provide for expeditious
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
441
disposal of consumer disputes and that, it is for the protection and benefit
of the consumer.
7. Before we proceed to analyse and determine the questions
referred, we may, for ready reference, reproduce the relevant provisions
of the Consumer Protection Act and its Regulations.
"Section 13. Procedure on admission of complaint. -
(1) The District Forum shall, on admission of a complaint, if
it relates to any goods,-
(a) refer a copy of the admitted complaint, within twenty-one
days from the date of its admission to the opposite party
mentioned in the complaint directing him to give his version
of the case within a period of thirty days or such extended
period not exceeding fifteen days as may be granted by the
District Forum.
(b)......................
(c)......................
(d)......................
(e)......................
(f)......................
(g)......................
(2) The District Forum shall, if the complaints admitted by it
under section 12 relates to goods in respect of which the
procedure specified in sub-section (1) cannot be followed, or
if the complaint relates to any services,-
(a) refer a copy of such complaint to the opposite party
directing him to give his version of the case within a period of
thirty days or such extended period not exceeding fifteen days
as may be granted by the District Forum;
(b) where the opposite party, on receipt of a copy of the
complaint, referred to him under clause (a) denies or disputes
the allegations contained in the complaint, or omits or fails
to take any action to represent his case within the time given
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. v. HILLI MULTIPURPOSE
COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD. [VINEET SARAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
442
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 5 S.C.R.
by the District Forum, the District Forum shall proceed to
settle consumer dispute,-
(i) on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the
complainant and the opposite party, where the opposite party
denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint,
or
(ii) ex parte on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by
the complainant where the opposite party omits or fails to
take any action to represent his case within the time given by
the Forum;
(c) where the complainant fails to appear on the date of hearing
before the District Forum, the District Forum may either
dismiss the complaint for default or decide it on merits.
(3) No proceedings complying with the procedure laid down
in sub-sections (1) and (2) shall be called in question in any
court on the ground that the principles of natural justice have
not been complied with.
1[(3A) Every complaint shall be heard as expeditiously as
possible and endeavour shall be made to decide the complaint
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of
notice by opposite party where the complaint does not require
analysis or testing of commodities and within five months, if
it requires analysis or testing of commodities:
Provided that no adjournment shall be ordinarily
granted by the District Forum unless sufficient cause is shown
and the reasons for grant of adjournment have been recorded
in writing by the Forum:
Provided further that the District Forum shall make such
orders as to the costs occasioned by the adjournment as may
be provided in the regulations made under this Act.
Provided also that in the event of a complaint being
disposed of after the period so specified, the District Forum
shall record in writing, the reasons for the same at the time of
disposing of the said complaint.]
1 Ins. by Act 62 of 2002, sec. 9 (w.e.f. 15-3-2003).
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
443
2[(3B) Where during the pendency of any proceeding before
the District Forum, it appears to it necessary, it may pass
such interim order as is just and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.]
(4) For the purposes of this section, the District Forum shall
have the same powers as are vested in a civil court under
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) while trying a suit
in respect of the following matters, namely:-
(i) the summoning and enforcing the attendance of any
defendant or witness and examining the witness on oath;
(ii) the discovery and production of any document or other
material object producible as evidence;
(iii) the reception of evidence on affidavits;
(iv) the requisitioning of the report of the concerned analysis
or test from the appropriate laboratory or from any other
relevant source;
(v) issuing of any commission for the examination of any
witness, and
(vi) any other matter which may be prescribed.
5...................
6...................
7...................
Section 15.Appeal. - Any person aggrieved by an order made
by the District Forum may prefer an appeal against such order
to the State Commission within a period of thirty days from
the date of the order, in such form and manner as may be
prescribed:
Provided that the State Commission may entertain an
appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is
satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within
that period;
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. v. HILLI MULTIPURPOSE
COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD. [VINEET SARAN, J.]
2 Ins. by Act 62 of 2002, Sec. 9 (w.e.f. 15-3-2003).
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
444
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 5 S.C.R.
Provided further that no appeal by a person, who is
required to pay any amount in terms of an order of the District
Forum, shall be entertained by the State Commission unless
the appellant has deposited in the prescribed manner fifty
per cent. of that amount or twenty-five thousand rupees,
whichever is less."
Section-19. Appeals.-Any person aggrieved by an order made
by the State Commission in exercise of its powers conferred
by sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of section 17 may prefer an
appeal against such order to the National Commission within
a period of thirty days from the date of the order in such form
and manner as may be prescribed:
Provided that the National Commission may entertain an
appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is
satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within
that period:
Provided further that no appeal by a person, who is
required to pay any amount in terms of an order of the State
Commission, shall be entertained by the National Commission
unless the appellant has deposited in the prescribed manner
fifty per cent. of the amount or rupees thirty-five thousand,
whichever is less.
Section-24A. Limitation period.
(1) The District Forum, the State Commis-sion or the National
Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within
two years from the date on which the cause of action has
arisen.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a
complaint may be entertained after the period specified in
sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum,
the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case
may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint
within such period:
Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained
unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
445
District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for
condoning such delay."
(emphasis supplied)
Relevant Provisions of the Consumer Protection Regulations,
2005 are reproduced below:
"Reg.-10. Issue of notice.-(1) Whenever the Consumer Forum
directs the issuance of a notice in respect of a complaint,
appeal or revision petition, as the case may be, to the opposite
party(ies)/respondent(s), ordinarily such notice shall be issued
for a period of 30 days and depending upon the circumstances
of each case even for less than 30 days.
(2) When there is a question of raising presumption of service,
30 days notice shall be required.
(3) Whenever notices are sought to be effected by a courier
service, it shall be ascertained that the courier is of repute.
(4) Whenever appointing the courier for the purpose of
effecting service, security deposit may also be taken.
(5) Along with the notice, copies of the complaint,
memorandum of grounds of appeal, petitions as the case may
be and other documents filed shall be served upon the opposite
party(ies)/respondent(s).
(6) After the opposite party or respondent has put in
appearance, no application or document shall be received
by the Registrar unless it bears an endorsement that a copy
thereof has been served upon the other side."
Reg.-14. Limitation.
(1) Subject to the provisions of sections 15, 19 and 24A, the
period of limitation in the following matters shall be as
follows:-
(i) Revision Petition shall be filed within 90 days from the
date of the order or the date of receipt of the order as the
case may be;
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. v. HILLI MULTIPURPOSE
COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD. [VINEET SARAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
446
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 5 S.C.R.
(ii) Application for setting aside the ex parte order under section 22A or dismissal of the complaint in default shall be
maintainable if filed within thirty days from the date of the
order or date of receipt of the order, as the case may be;
(iii) An application for review under sub-section (2) of section 22 shall be filed to the National Commission within 30
days from the date of the order or receipt of the order, as the
case may be;
(iv) The period of limitation for filing any application for
which no period of limitation has been specified in the Act,
the rules of these regulations shall be thirty days from the
date of the cause of action or the date of knowledge.
(2) Subject to the provisions of the Act, the Consumer Forum
may condone the delay in filing an application or a petition
referred to in sub-regulation (1) if valid and sufficient reasons
to its satisfaction are given.
Reg.-26. Miscellaneous.
(1) In all proceedings before the Consumer Forum, endeavour
shall be made by the parties and their counsel to avoid the
use of provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908):
Provided that the provisions of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 may be applied which have been referred to
in the Act or in the rules made thereunder.
 (2)....................
 (3)....................
 (4)....................
 (5)....................
 (6)...................."
(emphasis supplied)
Question No. 1:
Whether the District Forum has power to
extend the time for filing of response to the complaint
beyond the period of 15 days, in addition to 30 days, as
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
447
envisaged under Section 13(2)(a) of the Consumer
Protection Act?
8. A bare reading of Section 13(2)(a) of the Act makes it clear
that the copy of the complaint which is to be sent to the opposite party, is
to be with the direction to give his version of (or response to) the case
(or complaint) within a period of 30 days. It further provides that such
period of 30 days can be extended by the District Forum, but not beyond
15 days.
9. Sub-Section 2(b)(i) of Section 13 of the Act provides for a
complaint to be decided on the basis of the response by the opposite
party and the evidence of the complainant and the opposite party, where
allegations contained in the complaint are denied or disputed by the
opposite party. Sub-Section 2(b)(ii) of Section 13 of the Act provides
that where no response is filed by the opposite party, the complaint may
be decided ex parte on the basis of evidence brought forth by the
complainant.
10. Sub-Section 2(c) of Section 13 of the Consumer Protection
Act further provides that where the complainant fails to appear on the
date of hearing before the District Forum, the District Forum may either
dismiss the complaint for default or decide it on merits. The aforesaid
provision [sub-Section 2(c)] was inserted by Act 62 of 2002, w.e.f.
15.03.2003. Similarly, Section (3A) of Section 13 of the Consumer
Protection Act, which was also inserted by Act 62 of 2002, provides for
deciding every complaint as expeditiously as possible and endeavour
shall be made to decide the complaint within a period of three months
from the receipt of notice by the opposite party, and within five months,
if the complaint requires analysis or testing of commodities. It also
provides that no adjournment shall ordinarily be granted by the District
Forum, and if the same is to be granted, costs may be imposed, and
further that reasons be recorded if the complaint is disposed of after the
time so provided.
11. From the above, it is clear that as mentioned in the Statement
of Objects and Reasons of the Consumer Protection Act, the District
Forum is to provide speedy disposal of consumer disputes. The same
has been further reiterated by the legislature by insertion of Section
13(2)(c) and 13(3A) by Act 62 of 2002.
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. v. HILLI MULTIPURPOSE
COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD. [VINEET SARAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
448
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 5 S.C.R.
12. Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act clearly
contemplates where time can be extended by the District Forum, and
where it is not to be extended.