There was no mandate that in all the cases were the written statement was submitted beyond the stipulated period of 45 days, the delay must be condoned and the written statement must be taken on record – M/s Daddy’s Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Another Vs. Manisha Bhargava and Another – SC

As rightly observed by the National Commission, there was no mandate that in all the cases where the written statement was submitted beyond the stipulated period of 45 days, the delay must be condoned and the written statement must be taken on record. In order dated 10.02.2017, it is specifically mentioned that it will be open to the concerned fora to accept the written statement filed beyond the stipulated period of 45 days in an appropriate case, on suitable terms, including the payment of costs and to proceed with the matter. Therefore, ultimately, it was left to the concerned fora to accept the written statement beyond the stipulated period of 45 days in an appropriate case. As observed by the National Commission that despite sufficient time granted the written statement was not filed within the prescribed period of limitation. Therefore, the National Commission has considered the aspect of condonation of delay on merits also. In any case, in view of the earlier decision of this Court in the case of J.J. Merchant (supra) and the subsequent authoritative decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (2020) 5 SCC 757, consumer fora has no jurisdiction and/or power to accept the written statement beyond the period of 45 days, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned National Commission.

There was no mandate that in all the cases were the written statement was submitted beyond the stipulated period of 45 days, the delay must be condoned and the written statement must be taken on record – M/s Daddy’s Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Another Vs. Manisha Bhargava and Another – SC Read Post »