NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD v. HILLI MULTIPURPOSE COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD

#9. For deciding this question, this Court may first analyse the relevant provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and the Regulations framed thereunder. Sub-Sections (2)(a) and (2)(b) of Section13 of the Consumer Protection Act specify that it is the copy of the complaint which is to given to the opposite party directing him to give his version of the case within a period of 30 days or such extended period, not exceeding 15 days. As such, from the aforesaid provision itself, it is clear that it is the copy of the admitted complaint which is to be served, after which the period to file the response would commence. Further, Regulation 10 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 also specifies the procedure of issuing notice, which should be accompanied by copy of the complaint. Regulation 10(5) clearly mentions that “along with the notice, copies of the complaint, memorandum of grounds of appeal, petitions as the case may be and other documents filed shall be served upon the opposite party(ies)/respondent(s)”. The same would also make it clear that it is on service of a copy NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. v. HILLI MULTIPURPOSE COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD. 435 of the complaint that the period of limitation for filing the response by the opposite party shall commence. [Para 37][461-F-H; 462-A]

#10. Now reverting to the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, a conjoint reading of Clauses (a) and (b) of sub- Section (2) of Section 13 would make the position absolutely clear that the commencing point of limitation of 30 days, under the aforesaid provisions, would be from the date of receipt of notice accompanied by a copy of the complaint, and not merely receipt of the notice, as the response has to be given, within the stipulated time, to the averments 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, mere service of notice, without service of the copy of the complaint, would not suffice and cannot be the commencing point of 30 days under the aforesaid Section of the Act. This Court may, however, clarify that the objection of not having received a copy of the complaint along with the notice should be raised on the first date itself and not thereafter, otherwise if permitted to be raised at any point later would defeat the very purpose of the Act, which is to provide simple and speedy redressal of consumer disputes. [Para 40][463-D-F]

#11. To conclude, the 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 Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act; and the answer to the second question is the commencing point of limitation of 30 days under Section 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. [Para 41][463-G-H; 464-A] Dr. J.J. Merchant v. Shrinath Chaturvedi (2002) 6 SCC 635 : [2002] 1 Suppl. SCR 469 – held correct law.