New India Assurance Company ltd VS Hilli Multipurpose  Cold Storage Private ltd. 

Advertisements

Facts 

In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. VS Hilli Multipurpose Cold storage Private Ltd. Case  related to the grant of time for filing response to a complaint under the provisions of the  Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  

In this case the first question that arises did section 13(2), of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 that provides for the respondent or opposite party for filing his response to the  complaint within 30 days or such extended period, not exceeding 15 days, or did District  Forum has the power to extend the time for filing the response beyond the period of 15 days,  in addition to 30 days.  

As per the provisions of Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the opposite party  against whom case has been filed they have to respond to the complaint within a period of 30  days from the date of receipt of the copy of the complaint. 

As per the provision of Consumer Protection Act, the opposite party has to give his response  against the complaint within a period of thirty days or such extended period which not  exceeding fifteen days as may be granted by the District Forum. 

Issue

∙ Whether the District Forum has power to extend the time for filing the response  beyond the period of 15days, in addition to 30 days. 

∙ What would be the commencing point of 30 days stipulated under the aforesaid  section? 

Judgment 

The 5-judge bench of Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, MR Shah and S. Ravindra  Bhat, held that the District Forum has no power to extend the time of filing the response to  the complaint beyond the period of 15 days in addition to 30 days as per Section 13 of the  Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

It was held that induct of the 30 days under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act will  be from the date of receipt of the notice included with the complaint by the opposite party,  and that is not only the receipt of the notice of the complaint. 

The induct point will be from the date of receipt of notice which is received by a copy of the  complaint, and not only the receipt of the notice, as the response has to be given, within the  certain time, to the facts 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, only service of  notice, without service of the copy of the complaint, would not complete and cannot be the  induct point of 30 days under the predicated Section of the Act. 

The court held that the decision was rendered by a 3-judge bench in Dr. J. J. Merchant v. Shrinath  Chaturvedi, to be correct in law, it is held that the time limit for filling the response against  the complaint under the provision of section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act is to be  strictly adhered to, that is the same is mandatory, and not directory. 

References 

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/96395504/

https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2020/03/07/district-forum-cant-extend-limitation period-of-45-days-for-filing-response-under-section-13-of-consumer-protection-act/

This Article is written by Suchita Suman of Lloyd Law College, Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.

Admin