1 The appellants have filed a complaint before the National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission1, complaining of a deficiency of service on the part of the
respondents. The dispute pertains to a residential flat, which was allegedly booked by
the appellants. On 15 February 2019, the NCDRC dismissed the complaint, in terms of
the following directions:
“Learned counsel for the complainant states that further
time may be provided to him for filing the rejoinder and evidence
in the matter. This consumer complaint is of 2016. The last
order dated 16.11.2018, reads as under:
for the complainant. Last opportunity is granted to
the complainant to file the rejoinder and evidence
within a period of four weeks, failing which the
1 “NCDRC”
complaint shall stand dismissed automatically.”
In spite of the above order the complainant has not been
able to file the rejoinder and affidavit of evidence. It seems that
the complainant may not be having any merit in his case that is
why there has been delay in filing rejoinder and evidence.
As per the order dated 16.11.2018, the matter already
stands dismissed and, therefore, no further opportunity can be
provided for filing the rejoinder and evidence. Accordingly, the
file be consigned to record room.”
2 We find that the ground for rejection of the complaint is technical and in disregard
of the requirements of substantial justice. The purpose which Parliament sought to
achieve by setting up the NCDRC is to protect the rights of consumers to seek access
to justice under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. In the present case, there was a
conditional order dated 16 November 2018 requiring the appellants to file a rejoinder
and evidence within a period of four weeks, failing which the complaint was to stand
dismissed automatically. On 15 February 2019, the NCDRC declined to grant any
further time to the appellants and, proceeded to observe that it is perhaps because the
appellants do not have any merit in the case, that there was a delay in filing a rejoinder
and evidence. This inference was unwarranted.
3 We are affirmatively of the view that orders of this nature detract from the true
purpose for which the NCDRC has been established. The NCDRC should have borne
this in mind instead of rejecting the complaint on a technicality. Such dismissals only
add to the burden of litigation and defeat the purpose of ensuring justice in the
consumer fora.
4 We have also been repeatedly observing that marginal delays are not being
condoned by the NCDRC on the ground that the Consumer Protection Act 1986
stipulates a period within which a consumer complaint has to be disposed of. Though
the Act stipulates a period for disposing of a consumer complaint, it is also a sobering
reflection that complaints cannot be disposed of due to non-availability of resources and
infrastructure. In this background, it is harsh to penalise a bona fide litigant for marginal
delays that may occur in the judicial process. The consumer fora should bear this in
mind so that the ends of justice are not defeated.
5 In view of the fact that the complaint was dismissed on a mere technicality, we
did not consider it necessary to issue notice to the respondent. We, however, set aside
the impugned order of the NCDRC dated 15 February 2019 and restore Consumer
Complaint No 1432 of 2016 to the file of the NCDRC.
6 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has stated that the
rejoinder and the affidavit of evidence are ready. These be taken on the record by the
NCDRC.
7 The Appeal is accordingly disposed of.
[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]
[Hemant Gupta]
New Delhi; May 10, 2019
Civil Appeal No(s).4767/2019
VIBHA BAKSHI GOKHALE & ANR. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
M/S GRUHASHILP CONSTRUCTIONS & ORS. Respondent(s)
Date : 10-05-2019 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
For Appellant(s) Mr. Saurabh Jain, Adv.
Mr. P.K. Goswami, Adv.
Mr. S.P. Singh Rathore, Adv.
Mr. Ashok K. Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Uday Prakash Yadav, Adv.
Ms. Anuradha Soni Verma, Adv.
Mr. Shryansh Aggarwal, Adv.
Mr. Rajesh Goyal, Adv.
Mr. H. Arjun, Adv.
Mr. P. K. Jain, AOR
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
The Appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed
reportable order.
Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(Signed reportable order is placed on the file)