KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REVISION PETITION No. 03/2021
ORDER DATED : 16.10.2024
(Against the Order in I.A.No.84/2020 in C.C.No.65/2018 of CDRC, Kannur)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR | : | PRESIDENT |
SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN | : | MEMBER |
REVISION PETITIONER:
| Sasi U., S/o Ramesan, Nandukkandy House, Kakkayangad, Mushakkunnu Amsam, Nalloor Desam, Kakkayangad P.O., Kannur – 670 673 |
(by Advs. Lijin Thamban & Anagha Suresh)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS:
1. | The General Manager, Indira Gandhi Co-operative Hospital, Manjodi, Thalassery, Kannur – 670 103 |
2. | Dr. Pradeepkumar, MBBS, MS Mch., Department of General Surgery, Indira Gandhi Co-operative Hospital, Manjodi, Thalassery, Kannur–670 103 |
(by Adv. George Cherian Karippaparambil)
ORDER
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
The revision petitioner is the complainant in C.C. No. 65/2018 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kannur (for short the ‘District Commission’). The respondents are the opposite parties therein.
2. The respondents filed version after the receipt of the notice from the District Commission. Along with the version, the respondents had filed I.A.No.84/2020 to condone the inordinate delay in filing the version and accept the version. The District Commission allowed I.A.No.84/2020, condoned the delay in filing the version and accepted the version, against which this revision petition has been filed.
3. Service is complete. However, there is no representation for the respondents.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. We have also perused the records.
5. It appears from the records that the respondents filed vakalath before the District Commission on 05.04.2018. It further appears that the respondents filed version before the District Commission on 30.11.2020, which was after a period of 2 years 7 months and 25 days from the date of filing the vakalath. It appears from the order impugned that the respondents sought for time for filing the version from 05.04.2018 to 16.11.2018. The District Commission observed that there was no effective sitting thereafter for 1½ years due to Covid-19 pandemic and absence of quorum for sitting. The District Commission, considering the exclusion granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for the Covid period, opined that the delay in filing the version could be condoned. Accordingly, the delay was condoned and the version was accepted.
6. On account of the difficulties due to the wide spread of Covid-19, the Hon’ble Apex Court in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation v., reported in 2022 (1) KHC 240 : 2022 (3) 117, held that in cases where the period of limitation would have expired during the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. Thus, the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 is to be excluded for the computation of limitation and the balance period as available on 15.03.2020 would become available from 01.03.2022.
7. In the present case, the vakalath was filed on 05.04.2018. It is recorded by the District Commission that the respondent sought for time from 05.04.2018 to 16.11.2018 for filing the version, which itself would come to more than seven months. There was no sitting for the period from 16.11.2018 to 15.09.2019. It is further recorded by the District Commission that the respondents again sought for time from 25.09.2019 to 24.02.2020 for filing the version. Since the period of limitation for filing the version in the present case expired long before 15.03.2020, the District Commission was not justified in granting the benefit of the decision in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation v.(supra) to the respondents for condoning the delay in filing the version.
8. The Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (P) Ltd., reported in 2020 (5)SCC 757 : 2020 (2) KHC 274, held in paragraph 41 as hereunder:-
“41. 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 S.13 of the Consumer Protection Act; and the answer to the second question is that the commencing point of limitation of 30 days under S.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. The Hon’ble Apex Court further held in New India Assurance Co. Ltd.(supra) that the Judgment in New India Assurance Co. Ltd.(supra) would operate only prospectively.
10. The law is settled by the decision in New India Assurance Co. Ltd.(supra) 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 S.13 of the Consumer Protection Act. It is further settled that the commencing point of limitation of 30 days under S.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. It is true that the above decision was taken by the Apex Court on the basis of the provisions envisaged under S.13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Since S. 38 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, is pari materia with the provisions of S.13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the above decision is applicable to the cases filed after the enactment of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as well.
11. A Division Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Daddy's Builders (P) Ltd. v. Manisha Bhargava and another, reported in 2021(3) SCC 669 : 2021 (2) KHC 184 held that the prospective operation of the judgment in New India Assurance Co. Ltd.(supra) would apply only in cases where the delay stood condoned on a date prior to 4th March, 2020 and that the Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction or power to accept the written statement beyond the period of 45 days.
12. Another two-judge Bench of the Apex Court in Dr A Suresh Kumar v. Amit Agarwal, reported in 2021 (7) SCC 466 : 2021 KHC 6303, considered a factual situation where the NCDRC summarily dismissed an application for condonation of delay filed before the decision of the Constitution Bench in New India Assurance Company Limited (supra). The Court in Dr A Suresh Kumar (supra) held that since the decision of the Constitution Bench was to operate with prospective effect, applications for condonation of delay filed before 4th March 2020 ought to be considered on merits.
13. A Three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Diamond Exports vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Reported in (2022) 4 SCC 169 : 2021 KHC 6839 held that Daddy's Builders (P) Ltd. (Supra) would not affect applications seeking condonation of delay that were pending or decided on or before 04/03/2020. It was further held by the Apex Court in the said decision that applications seeking for condonation of delay preferred before the Consumer Fora prior to 04.03.2020 i.e. the date of pronouncement of New India Assurance Co. Ltd.(supra), must be decided on merits and ought not to be summarily dismissed.
14. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Vijay Dixit (Dr.) v. Pagadal Krishna Mohan reported in 2024 KHC Online 6466 : 2024 SCC Online SC : 2024 INSC 627 held that the application seeking for condonation of delay preferred before the consumer fora prior to 04/03/2020 i.e., the date of pronouncement of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra), must be decided on merits; and ought not to be summarily dismissed.
15. It is clear from the above cited authorities that the application seeking for condonation of delay preferred before the consumer fora prior to 04/03/2020 i.e., the date of pronouncement of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra), must be decided on merits; and ought not to be summarily dismissed.
16. In the present case, the period of 15 days in addition to 30 days as envisaged under the Consumer Protection Act for filing the version expired long before 04.03.2020. However, no application for condonation of delay was pending as on 04.03.2020, the date on which New India Assurance Co. Ltd.(supra) was decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court. No version was also filed before 04.03.2020. The respondents filed the version only on 30.11.2020 along with I.A. No. 84/2020 seeking for condoning the delay in filing the version, though the respondents entered appearance and filed vakalath on 05.04.2018. This being the fact, the District Commission was not justified in allowing I.A.84/2020 seeking for condonation of delay in filing version, as the District Commission had then no jurisdiction or power to accept the version beyond the period of 45 days. Consequently, the order passed by the District Commission condoning the delay on I.A.No.84/2020 stands set aside.
In the result, this revision petition stands allowed and the order of the District Commission in I.A.84/2020 in C.C. No. 68/2018 dated 05.01.2021 stands set aside. However, the respondents shall be at liberty to cross-examine the complainant as held by the Apex Court in Kaushik Narsinhbhai Patel v. M/s. S.J.R. Prime Corporation Private Limited reported in 2024 KHC 6386: 2024 INSC 542: AIR 2024 SC 3854.
JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
jb RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
