Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: dr j.j.merchant in New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt Ltd on 4 March, 2020Matching Fragments
26. We may now deal with the decisions rendered by this Court, which have been referred to in the Reference Order.
27. Division Bench of this Court has referred this Question, after observing that there is an apparent conflict between the decisions of this Court in Topline Shoes (supra); Kailash Vs. Nanhku (2005) 4 SCC 480 and Salem Advocate Bar Association vs. Union of India (2005) 6 SCC 344 on the one hand; and Dr. J. J. Merchant (supra) and NIA vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (2015) 16 SCC 22, on the other hand.
In passing, in paragraph 35 of the said judgment, the Bench referred to the case of Topline Shoes (supra), where the provision of Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act was considered to be directory, and not mandatory. In our view, the same would not have the effect of affirming the decision of Topline Shoes (supra) since the Court, in the aforesaid case, was dealing with the provisions of the Code and not the specific provisions of Consumer Protection Act.
We are thus of the opinion that Kailash vs Nanhku (supra) has not overruled the decision in Dr. J. J. Merchant (supra) with regard to the provision of the Consumer Protection Act.
31. The case of Dr. J. J. Merchant (supra) is one relating to the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, and has been decided by a Bench of three Judges of this Court (which is after the decision in the case of Topline Shoes (supra) was rendered). In this case it has been held that the time limit prescribed for filing the response to the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, as provided under Section 13(2)(a), is to be strictly adhered to, i.e. the same is mandatory, and not directory. In paragraph 13 of the said judgment, it has been held that:
“For having speedy trial, this legislative mandate of not giving more than 45 days in submitting the written statement or the version of the case is required to be adhered to. If this is not adhered to, the legislative mandate of disposing of the cases within three or five months would be defeated.
In the said case of Dr. J. J. Merchant (supra), while holding that the time limit prescribed would be mandatory and thus be required to be strictly adhered to, this Court also considered the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Bill, 2002 (which was subsequently enacted as Act 62 of 2002 and has come in force w.e.f. 15.03.2003). The salient features of the same was “to provide simple, inexpensive and speedy justice to the consumers……….” and that “the disposal of cases is to be faster” and after noticing that “several bottlenecks and shortcomings have also come to light in the implementation of various provisions of the Act” and with a view to achieve quicker disposal of consumer complaints, certain amendments were made in the Act, which included “(iii) prescribing the period within which complaints are to be admitted, notices are to be issued to opposite party and complaints are to be decided”. With this object in mind, in subSection (2)(b)(ii) of Section 13, the opening sentence “on the basis of evidence” has been substituted by “ex parte on the basis of evidence”. By this amendment, consequences of not filing the response to the complaint within the specified limit of 45 days was to be that the District Forum shall procced to settle the consumer dispute ex parte on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant, where the opposite party omits or fails to take action to represent his case within time. For achieving the objective of quick disposal of complaints, the Court noticed that subSection (3A) of Section 13 was inserted, providing that the complaint should be heard as expeditiously as possible and that endeavour should be made to normally decide the complaint within 3 months, and within 5 months where analysis or testing of commodities was required. The Provisos to the said sub Section required that no adjournment should be ordinarily granted and if granted, it should be for sufficient cause to be recorded in writing and on imposition of cost, and if the complaint could not be decided within the specified period, reasons for the same were to be recorded at the time of disposing of the complaint.