Team  SoOLEGAL

Consumer Forum has no power to extend time beyond 45 days for opposite parties’ version: SC Constitution Bench

Team SoOLEGAL 4 Mar 2020 4:00pm

Consumer Forum has no power to extend time beyond 45 days for opposite parties’ version: SC Constitution Bench

Delhi: On Wednesday, the Supreme Court held that time limit for filing the version of the opposing party in Consumer case cannot be extended beyond the 45-day period specified by the Consumer Protection Act.

The Court held that the Consumer Protection Act,1986 did not authorize the Consumer Forum to extend the deadline beyond 45 days.

A 5-judge bench consisting of the judges, Justice Arun Mishra, Justice Indira Banerjee, Justice Vineet Saran, Justice M.R. Shah and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, heard the question, in the case on 29 January had reserved orders.

The issue stems from the New India Assurance Co situation. Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt Ltd. v. Hilli. Ltd.[ (2015) 16 SCC 472], in which the question arose whether the matter was regulated by law set out in Dr. J.J. Merchant & Ors v. Shrinath Chaturvedi[ (2002) 6 SCC 365] or Kailash v. Nankhu & Ors. SCC[(2005) 4 SCC 480]. Whilst the J.J. Merchant claimed that in no case could a period be given beyond 45 days, the Kailash case relating to Election Law and Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure stated that such provisions are not mandatory, but of a directory nature, and therefore, in the interests of justice, additional time could be provided for the filing of answers on the basis of the circumstances.

According to Section 13(2)(a), when a complaint is issued by the District Forum pursuant to Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, a copy of the complaint must be served on the opposing party and the opposing party must file its version of the complaint within 30 days of receiving the copy of the complaint. Section 13(2)(a) controls the extension period of 15 days which may be given by the District Forum to the other party. The same is also the time-limit for filing versions in the State Commission and the National Commission.

The Petitioners in the instant argued that not granting extension would be antithetical to the principle of audi alteram partem (let the other side be heard as well).

The respondents highlighted the legislative intent behind the absence of the "sufficient cause" in Section 13 which indicates the compulsory existence of the provision according to them.



Tagged: Constitution Bench   Supreme Court   Consumer Protection Act   Consumer Forum   Justice Arun Mishra   Justice Indira Banerjee   Justice Vineet Saran   Justice M.R. Shah   Justice S. Ravindra Bhat  
Did you find this write up useful? YES 0 NO 0
×

C2RMTo Know More

Something Awesome Is In The Work

0

DAYS

0

HOURS

0

MINUTES

0

SECONDS

Sign-up and we will notify you of our launch.
We’ll also give some discount for your effort :)

* We won’t use your email for spam, just to notify you of our launch.
×

SAARTHTo Know More

Launching Soon : SAARTH, your complete client, case, practise & document management SAAS application with direct client chat feature.

If you want to know more give us a Call at :+91 98109 29455 or Mail info@soolegal.com