Supreme Court - Daily Orders
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Paralam Global Private Limited on 7 November, 2023
Author: B.V. Nagarathna
Bench: B.V. Nagarathna
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5030/2023
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
PARALAM GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
The appellant-New India Assurance Company Limited and others are aggrieved by the order dated 13.04.2023 by which I.A. No.947/2023 filed for recalling of the earlier order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short “the NCDRC”) in Consumer Complaint No.672/2019 dated 04.01.2023 seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statement was dismissed.
Briefly stated the facts are that the appellants herein who were the respondents before the NCDRC, received notice from the NCDRC and had to file their written statement within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of notice or by an extended period of fifteen days as per Section 13 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (For short “the Act”). Admittedly, the written statement was not filed within the aforesaid period and there was a Signature Not Verified delay of forty four days beyond aforesaid forty five days in filing Digitally signed by RADHA SHARMA Date: 2023.11.22 14:31:37 IST Reason: the written statement. An application seeking condonation of delay 1 was filed. The said application being I.A. No.1376/2020 was dismissed by order dated 04.01.2023. Being aggrieved, the appellants herein filed another application (I.A. No.947/2023) seeking recall of the order dated 04.01.2023. By the impugned order dated 13.04.2023, the said application was also dismissed. Hence this appeal.
Before proceeding further, it would be useful to narrate the development of law on the controversy that has arisen in this appeal. In Diamond Exports vs United India Insurance Company Limited, (2022) 4 SCC 169, (Diamond Exports) the history of the controversy has been recorded. That in New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited reported in (2020) 5 SCC 757 (Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (P) Ltd.) the Constitution Bench of this Court held that the outer limit of time for filing a written statement in Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is binding. But in Para 63 it was clarified by the Constitution Bench that the judgment would operate prospectively. Therefore, it was held that the District Forum has no power to condone delay beyond a discretionary period of fifteen days (in addition to thirty days) as is envisaged under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act (‘Act’, for short). But in Diamond Exports the controversy was, whether, prior to the decision of the Constitution Bench, NCDRC had condoned a delay for a period beyond the prescribed statutory outer limit, was correct or not. In this context, it is necessary to note that NCDRC had exercised its discretion on 25-2-2020 to condone the delay prior to the decision 2 of the Constitution Bench on 4-3-2020.
In Mampee Timbers & Hardwares [Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mampee Timbers & Hardwares (P) Ltd., (2021) 3 SCC 673], a two-Judge Bench of this Court had, on 10-2-2017, issued directions to the Consumer Fora as regards applications for condonation during the pendency of the reference to the Constitution Bench. Similarly, in Bhasin Infotech & Infrastructure (P) Ltd. vs. Grand Venezia Buyers Assn. (2018) 17 SCC 255 a two-Judge Bench of this Court had permitted parties to file written statements beyond the prescribed limitation period, subject to payment of appropriate costs.
But subsequently, in Daddy's Builders (P) Ltd. vs. Manisha Bhargava (2021) 3 SCC 669 (Daddy's Builders) which was rendered on 11-2-2021 after the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage this Court had made certain observations. This Court held that the decision of the Constitution Bench was to operate with prospective effect, and, therefore, applications for condonation of delay filed before 4-3-2020 ought to be considered on merits. In A. Suresh Kumar vs. Amit Agarwal, (2021) 7 SCC 466, the observation of a prior Bench of co-equal strength in Daddy’s Builders to the contrary had not been noted. The divergence of opinion in A. Suresh Kumar and Daddy’s Builders was noted in Bhasin Infotech and Infrastructure (P) Ltd. and the matter was referred to a three Judge Bench.
In Diamond Exports, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud (presently 3 Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India) noticed that the observations made in Daddy’s Builders were unnecessary once it was held on merits that there was no case of condonation of delay. Consequently, it was observed that the decision in Daddy’s Builders, would not affect applications that was pending prior to 04.03.2020. As such applications for condonation would be entitled to the benefit of the observations in Mampee Timbers & Hardwares wherein it had directed to render a decision on merits and grant the benefit of condonation of delay if so necessitated.
It is in light of the aforesaid judgments that we have considered this argument advanced on behalf of the parties and entertained this appeal on the merits of the application seeking condonation of delay filed by the appellant herein before the NCDRC.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant-New India Assurance Company Limited and learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant before the NCDRC and perused the material on record.
The controversy between the parties is in a very narrow compass. No doubt, Section 13 of the Act prescribes the limitation period for filing of the written statement, the aforesaid time- frame was admittedly not complied with by the appellants herein.
In the circumstances, the NCDRC by its order dated 04.01.2023 with reference to New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited reported in (2020) 5 SCC 4 757 (Civil Appeal Nos.10941-10942/2013)(Hilli Multipurpose) dismissed the application seeking condonation of delay.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that thereafter the question of law has been settled by a three Judge Bench of this Court in case of Diamond Exports wherein it has been held that the benefit of the decision in the case of Mampee Timbers & Hardwares (P) Ltd., would have to be given to those applicants whose applications seeking condonation of delay in filing the Written Statement were pending as on 04.03.2020.
It was submitted by appellants’ counsel that the appellants’ application seeking condonation of delay was pending prior to 04.03.2020 and therefore, the benefit of the judgment in Diamond Exports have to be given to the appellants herein. However, since due to inadvertence the said judgment was not brought to the notice of the NCDRC, the order dated 04.01.2023 was passed.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned order dated 13.04.2023 may be set aside and consequently, the application seeking condonation of the delay may also be considered by this Court and the delay in filing the written statement may be condoned, having regard to the dictum of this Court in Diamond Exports.
Per contra, learned senior counsel Sri D.S. Naidu appearing for the respondent vehemently objected to the recall of the order dated 04.01.2023 and he also, alternatively, submitted that in the 5 event the order dated 04.01.2023 is recalled then the application filed by the appellants herein seeking condonation of delay may be heard by the NCDRC on its own merits.
By way of reply, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that although there has been no express challenge to the order dated 04.01.2023, the fact that the I.A. No.947/2023 was filed seeking recall of the order dated 04.01.2023, justice would be subserved in the matter if, not only the order dated 13.04.2023 is set aside but also the order dated 04.01.2023 is recalled and further the short delay of forty four days in filing of the written statement may also be condoned in terms of the dictum of this Court in Diamond Exports as only a short delay of less than fifty days in filing the said written statement has occurred in the instant case.
The detailed narration of facts and contentions would not call for reiteration. The controversy with regard to the interpretation of Section 13(2) of the Act was ultimately concluded with the dictum of this Court in Diamond Exports. Having regard to the strict time-frame intended by the Parliament for the purpose of filing of the written statement and while interpreting the said provisions, this Court has interpreted the same prospectively that is, with effect from 04.03.2020 onwards and all applications seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statement belatedly till 04.03.2020 had to be entertained and considered on the facts and circumstances of each case. Therefore, we find that on that short ground alone the order dated 13.04.2023 has to be recalled and consequently, the order dated 04.01.2023 has also to 6 be recalled and the application seeking condonation of delay will now have to be considered.
Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent Sri Naidu has drawn our attention to the application seeking condonation of delay and has contended that there is hardly any reason pointed out in the application let alone sufficient reason so as to seek the benefit of condonation of delay in filing the written statement by the appellants herein.
We have perused the same and we discern that the reason for the belated filing of the written statement could be traced to the several meetings held by the appellants herein with their advocates who thereafter prepared the reply and time has been consumed in the said process.
The reason for the delay as we can discern is that the appellants herein had several meetings with the learned advocates who were entrusted with the responsibility of filing the written statement and this was owing to the huge claim made by the respondent herein and in respect of which a correct written statement had to be filed. Consequently, time was consumed in the preparation of the written statement at Kolkata and as a result there was a delay in filing the same. We find that the said explanation requires acceptance and is, therefore, accepted as sufficient cause for the delay to be condoned in the instant case. Therefore, we find that this is a fit case where the delay in filing the written statement ought to be condoned and is hence, 7 condoned. But the fact remains that the considerable time has lapsed between the order dated 04.01.2023 and today when this appeal is being disposed of by this Court and in order to compensate the respondent for the lapse of the time, we find that it would be just and proper to allow this appeal subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh only) to the respondent herein. The said amount shall be paid by the appellant to the respondent within a period of two weeks from today failing which the appellants shall not have the benefit of this order. The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
......................J. ( B.V. NAGARATHNA ) .......................J. ( UJJAL BHUYAN ) NEW DELHI;
NOVEMBER 07, 2023
8
ITEM NO.40 COURT NO.14 SECTION XVII-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5030/2023
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
PARALAM GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and IA No.146179/2023-STAY APPLICATION and IA No.146172/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS) Date : 07-11-2023 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN For Appellant(s) Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, AOR Ms. K Enatoli Sema, Adv.
Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Adv. Mr. Prang Newmai, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Pai Amit, AOR Ms. Vanshika Dubey, Adv. Mr. P. Ashok, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned.
The appeal is allowed and disposed of in terms of the signed order.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(RADHA SHARMA) (BEENA JOLLY)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
(SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE)
9