Supreme Court of India
VIBHA BAKSHI GOKHALE & ANR. versus M/S. GRUHASHILP CONSTRUCTIONS & ORS. on 10 May 2019
[2019] 8 S.C.R. 709
VIBHA BAKSHI GOKHALE & ANR.
v.
M/S. GRUHASHILP CONSTRUCTIONS & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 4767 of 2019)
MAY 10, 2019
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Consumer Protection Act, 1986: Deficiency of service –Dispute pertained to a residential flat which was allegedly bookedby the appellant – Appellant filed complaint before NationalCommission in 2016 – On 1611.2018, National Commission passedorder granting last opportunity to file rejoinder and evidence – Byimpugned order, National commission dismissed the complaintobserving that the complainant was granted last opportunity to filerejoinder and evidence which he failed to do may be for the reasonthat the complainant may not have any merit in his case – On appeal,held: The purpose for setting up the National Commission was toprotect the rights of consumers to seek access to justice under theConsumer Protection Act – In the instant case, there was a conditionalorder dated 16.11.2018 requiring the appellants to file a rejoinderand evidence within a period of four weeks, failing which thecomplaint would be dismissed automatically – On 15.2.2019, theNational Commission declined to grant any further time to theappellants and, proceeded to observe that there was a delay in filinga rejoinder and evidence and that it was perhaps because theappellants did not have any merit in the case – This inference wasunwarranted – The ground for rejection of the complaint wastechnical and in disregard of the requirements of substantial justice– Orders of such nature detract from the true purpose for which theCommission was established – Such dismissals only add to the burdenof litigation and defeat the purpose of ensuring justice in theconsumer fora – Though the Act stipulates a period for disposingof a consumer complaint, it is also a sobering reflection thatcomplaints cannot be disposed of due to non-availability ofresources and infrastructure – In this background, it is harsh to
709
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Apenalise a bona fide litigant for marginal delays that may occur inthe judicial process – Impugned order of the National Commissiondated 15.2.2019 and Consumer Complaint is restored to the file ofthe National Commission.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4767Bof 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.02.2019 of the NationalConsumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in CC/1432/2016.
Saurabh Jain, P. K. Goswami, S. P. Singh Rathore, Ashok K.Sharma, Uday Prakash Yadav, Ms. Anuradha Soni Verma, ShryanshCAggarwal, Rajesh Goyal, H. Arjun and P. K. Jain, Advs. for theAppellants.
The following Order of the Court was passed:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
D
D1. The appellants have filed a complaint before the NationalConsumer Disputes Redressal Commission[1], complaining of a deficiencyof service on the part of the respondents. The dispute pertains to aresidential flat, which was allegedly booked by the appellants. On 15February 2019, the NCDRC dismissed the complaint, in terms of thefollowing directions:E
“Learned counsel for the complainant states that further timemay be provided to him for filing the rejoinder and evidence in thematter. This consumer complaint is of 2016. The last order dated16.11.2018, reads as under:
“Complainant has not filed the rejoinder. Proxy counsel ispresent on behalf of the main counsel for the complainant.Last opportunity is granted to the complainant to file therejoinder and evidence within a period of four weeks, failingwhich the complaint shall stand dismissed automatically.”
F
In spite of the above order the complainant has not been ableto file the rejoinder and affidavit of evidence. It seems that thecomplainant may not be having any merit in his case that is whythere has been delay in filing rejoinder and evidence.
G
As per the order dated 16.11.2018, the matter already standsdismissed and, therefore, no further opportunity can be providedfor filing the rejoinder and evidence. Accordingly, the file beconsigned to record room.”
2. We find that the ground for rejection of the complaint is technicaland in disregard of the requirements of substantial justice. The purposewhich Parliament sought to achieve by setting up the NCDRC is toprotect the rights of consumers to seek access to justice under theConsumer Protection Act 1986. In the present case, there was aconditional order dated 16 November 2018 requiring the appellants tofile a rejoinder and evidence within a period of four weeks, failing whichthe complaint was to stand dismissed automatically. On 15 February2019, the NCDRC declined to grant any further time to the appellantsand, proceeded to observe that it is perhaps because the appellants donot have any merit in the case, that there was a delay in filing a rejoinderand evidence. This inference was unwarranted.
3. We are affirmatively of the view that orders of this naturedetract from the true purpose for which the NCDRC has been established.The NCDRC should have borne this in mind instead of rejecting thecomplaint on a technicality. Such dismissals only add to the burden oflitigation and defeat the purpose of ensuring justice in the consumerfora.
4. We have also been repeatedly observing that marginal delaysare not being condoned by the NCDRC on the ground that the ConsumerProtection Act 1986 stipulates a period within which a consumer complainthas to be disposed of. Though the Act stipulates a period for disposing ofa consumer complaint, it is also a sobering reflection that complaintscannot be disposed of due to non-availability of resources andinfrastructure. In this background, it is harsh to penalise a bona fidelitigant for marginal delays that may occur in the judicial process. Theconsumer fora should bear this in mind so that the ends of justice are notdefeated.
5. In view of the fact that the complaint was dismissed on a meretechnicality, we did not consider it necessary to issue notice to therespondent. We, however, set aside the impugned order of the NCDRCdated 15 February 2019 and restore Consumer Complaint No 1432 of2016 to the file of the NCDRC.
A
BC
D
E
F
G
H
A6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has statedthat the rejoinder and the affidavit of evidence are ready. These betaken on the record by the NCDRC.
7. The Appeal is accordingly disposed of.
B
Devika Gujral
Appeal disposed of.
C
D
E
F
G
H