Ricardo Constructions Pvt. Ltd vs Ravi Kuckian

RICARDO CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. … APPELLANT (s)

VERSUS

RAVI KUCKIAN & OTHERS … RESPONDENT(s)

ORDER

Rajesh Bindal, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed against the order 1 dated

19.07.2024 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal

Commission,2 New Delhi in a complaint filed by respondent Nos.1 to

31 whereby the right of the appellant to file written statement was

foreclosed. The complainants were given six weeks time to file

affidavit of evidence and the matter was directed to be listed on

09.01.2025.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that time as

provided in law, was not granted to file the written statement.

Hence, the impugned order of the Commission may be set aside and

the appellant may be given an opportunity to file written statement. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by

3. Jayant Kumar Arora Date: 2024.09.21 16:35:10 IST The order passed by the Commission on 06.02.2024 Reason:

1 Consumer Complaint No.5 of 2024 2 For short, ‘The Commission’

1 suggests that the counsel, who had appeared on behalf of the

appellant was granted time to file vakalatnama. Notice was directed

to be issued to the Opposite Party No.2 in the complaint and 30

days’ time was granted to the appellant to file its written statement,

whereafter the complainants could file rejoinder and the matter was

fixed on 19.07.2024 for the next hearing. As the appellant could not

file the written statement within the time granted by the

Commission, the right to file the same was foreclosed.

4. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the

appellant is that copy of the complaint was not supplied to the

counsel of the appellant, hence, written statement could not be filed

within the time granted. He further submits that the counsel had

put in appearance merely, seeing the matter in the cause list on

06.02.2024, and had sought time to file the written statement. The

copy of the complaint was not handed over to him. The service of

notice on the appellant was not done by the process of the court. In

the absence of a copy of the complaint, it was not possible for the

appellant to file its written statement. Reliance has been placed on

the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in New India

Assurance Company Limited v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold

Storage Private Limited3 to support the arguments raised by the

appellant.

3 (2020) 5 SCC 757 : 2020 INSC 274 : [2020] 5 S.C.R. 429

2

5. It was further urged that there is no cause on the part of

the appellant to delay the proceedings. Counsel for the appellant

accepted notice in the complaint on the very first date of hearing i.e.

06.02.2024, otherwise notice on that day was issued to the opposite

party No. 2 and matter was listed for further orders/directions on

19.07.2024. Even after foreclosing the right of the appellant to file

the written statement on 19.07.2024 and granting six weeks’ time to

the complainants to file affidavit of evidence, the next date of

hearing was fixed more than five months thereafter. In such

circumstances if opportunity is granted to the appellant to file its

written statement, he shall file the same without delay and the

complainants thereafter would have sufficient time to file rejoinder

and also affidavit of evidence, much before the next date of hearing

on 09.01.2025 as fixed by the Commission.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent

Nos.1 to 31/complainants before the Commission, submitted that in

view of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of this Court in New

India Assurance Company Limited’s case (supra), a maximum

period of 45 days’ can be granted to opposite party to file the

written statement and the Commission had rightly foreclosed the

3 right of the appellant to file the written statement as from the date

of acceptance of notice, more than 45 days had expired. The

written statement had not yet been filed. It was the duty of the

appellant to have asked for a copy of the complaint from the counsel

for the complainant, in case it was not received or supplied. The

appellant merely wants to delay the proceedings.

7. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and

perused the relevant referred record.

8. It is evident from the impugned order that in the complaint

filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 31, notice was issued on

06.02.2024 to the Opposite Parties. As the counsel representing the

appellant happened to be present before the Commission, and with

a view to resolve the dispute between the parties expeditiously, he

accepted the notice on the same day even though he did not have

the vakalatnama executed by the appellant in his favour. Otherwise,

the notice was issued to Opposite Party No. 2 and matter was fixed

for 19.07.2024, the first date of hearing fixed by the Commission

after issuance of such notice. As the copy of the complaint was not

served upon the appellant or its counsel, the written statement

could not be filed in time and accordingly, prayer was made on

19.07.2024 seeking further time for the purpose. However, the

same was declined by the Commission while observing that it was

4 an attempt on the part of the appellant to delay the proceedings.

8.1 However, considering the fact that the counsel for the

appellant who happened to be present before the Commission on

the very first date when the complaint was listed, accepted the

notice, it does not show that there was any effort on the part of the

appellant to delay the process. The next date of hearing fixed by

the Commission was on 19.07.2024 after issuance of notice to

Opposite Party No.2. On that day, while foreclosing the right of the

appellant to file the written statement, six weeks’ time was granted

to the complainants to file affidavit in evidence and matter was

posted for 09.01.2025. Under these circumstances, if some

reasonable time is granted to the appellant to file the written

statement and complainant to file replication thereof, the pleadings

would be complete before the next date of hearing fixed and even

affidavit of evidence can be filed by the complainants before that

date.

9. The Constitution Bench of this Court in New India

Assurance Company Limited’s case (supra) considered one of the

questions as to what would be the commencing point of limitation of

30 days under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and

opined that the commencing point of limitation of 30 days would be

from the date of receipt of the notice accompanied with the

5 complaint by the opposite party and not on mere receipt of the

notice of the complaint. For ready reference questions framed

thereunder and answer to those questions, are reproduced herein

below :

“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 envisaged under Section 13(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act?

Question No.2 : What would be the commencing point of limitation of 30 days under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986?

xxx xxx xxx

62. To conclude, we hold that our 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.” 9.1 If we examine the provisions of the Consumer Protection

Act, 2019, the same are in the line with the Consumer Protection

6 Act, 1986.

10. Argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant

is that the copy of the complaint was not served upon him. The

Commission had put onus on the appellant to have not made any

attempt to get the copy of the complaint. However, the fact remains

that the Commission has merely recorded in its order dated

06.02.2024 that the notice was accepted by the counsel for the

appellant in Court and he was granted time to file the vakalatnama

and written statement. The order does not record that copy of the

complaint has been supplied by the counsel for the complainants to

the counsel for the opposite party No.1/the appellant herein. Any

such observation by the Commission in its order would have

clinched the issue. It is not a case where along with the notice, copy

of the complaint was accompanied. Therefore, it may be too harsh

to foreclose anyone’s right to file written statement merely on

conjectures and surmises.

11. For the reasons mentioned above, the present appeal is

allowed. The impugned order passed by the Commission insofar it

foreclosed the right of the appellant to file written statement is

hereby set aside. The appellant is permitted to file written

statement on or before 14.10.2024. The respondent Nos.1 to

31/complainants shall be at liberty to file replication, if any, by

7 06.11.2024 and the affidavit of evidence on or before 09.12.2024.

The matter shall remain fixed on 09.01.2025 for the purpose already

mentioned. The appellant is permitted to file written statement

subject to payment of costs of ₹1,00,000/- each to respondent Nos.1

to 31/complainants. The payment of costs shall be a condition

precedent for acceptance of written statement on record. The costs,

as above, shall be transferred in the respective bank accounts of the

respondents. In case the details thereof are not available with the

appellant, the same can be taken in coordination with the counsels

representing them.

……………….……………..J. (J.K. MAHESHWARI)

……………….……………..J. (RAJESH BINDAL) New Delhi September 06, 2024.

8

ITEM NO.28 COURT NO.8 SECTION XVII

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). 9958/2024

RICARDO CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. Appellant(s)

VERSUS

RAVI KUCKIAN & OTHERS Respondent(s)

(FOR ADMISSION and IA No.192778/2024-EX-PARTE STAY)

Date : 06-09-2024 This appeal was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL

For Appellant(s) Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Pranjit Bhattacharya, Adv.

Mr. Vaibhav Niti, AOR Ms. Sonam Mhatre, Adv.

Ms. Raj Sarit Khare, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Aditya Parolia, Adv.

Mr. Piyush Singh, Adv.

Mr. Akshay Srivastava, Adv.

Mr. Alankrit Bhatnagar, Adv.

Mr. Suryansh Vashisth, Adv.

Mr. Anshul Gupta, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

1. The civil appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.

2. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.

(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (ANU BHALLA) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER

(Signed Reportable Order is placed on the file)

9