The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has set aside an order striking off the right of Emaar India Limited to file a written statement, holding that the limitation period for filing a written statement commences only after the opposite party receives a complete set of the complaint along with all supporting documents. The Commission emphasized that the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 mandates that the written version must be filed within 30 days (extendable by 15 days) from the date of receipt of the complete complaint. The order underscores the importance of procedural fairness and the need for complainants to supply all relevant documents to enable a meaningful defense.
Background & Facts
The Genesis
The respondents, Mr. Pawan Malhotra and Ms. Bina Malhotra, had earlier filed Consumer Complaint No. CC/1784/2008 against Emaar India Limited (then known as Emaar MGF Land Ltd.) before the Delhi State Consumer Commission. The complaint was withdrawn on the ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction, with liberty to file the same before the appropriate Commission. Thereafter, pursuant to the enactment of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the respondents filed the present complaint before the District Commission.
Key Facts
- The respondents filed Consumer Complaint No. 38/2022 before the District Commission on 26.02.2024, seeking relief against Emaar India Limited.
- The District Commission issued notice to the appellant (Emaar India Limited) on 20.02.2023 and 27.04.2023.
- The appellant repeatedly brought to the notice of the District Commission that it had not been supplied with a complete set of the complaint along with the supporting documents.
- The matter was referred to mediation, which failed, and the matter was taken up again before the District Commission on 28.11.2023.
- On 28.11.2023, the counsel for the respondents submitted that the complaint along with the documents would be supplied to the appellant during the course of the day. However, the annexures relied upon by the respondents in the earlier complaint were not supplied to the appellant.
- The respondents admitted in their reply to the present appeal that the documents relied upon in support of the complaint were not supplied to the appellant, as the complaint filed before the District Commission was identical to the earlier complaint, and they intended to rely upon the annexures filed in the earlier complaint.
Procedural History
- 26.02.2024: Consumer Complaint No. 38/2022 filed before the District Commission.
- 20.02.2023 & 27.04.2023: Notice issued to the appellant by the District Commission.
- 28.11.2023: Matter referred to mediation; mediation failed; matter taken up again before the District Commission.
- 15.01.2024: District Commission passed order striking off the right of the appellant to file the written statement.
- 26.02.2024: Present appeal (FA/125/2024) filed before the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
- 08.05.2026: Hearing held.
- 21.07.2026: Judgment delivered by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought setting aside of the order dated 15.01.2024 passed by the District Commission, whereby the right of the appellant to file the written statement was struck off. The appellant also prayed for a direction to the respondents to supply a complete set of the complaint along with all the relevant documents.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the District Commission was justified in striking off the right of the appellant to file the written statement without ensuring that the appellant had received a complete set of the complaint along with all supporting documents.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The counsel for the appellant contended that the District Commission erred in striking off the right of the appellant to file the written statement on the basis of a false statement made by the counsel for the respondents that a complete set of the complaint had been provided to the appellant. The counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., (2020) 5 SCC 757, which laid down that the limitation period for filing the written statement commences from the date of receipt of a complete set of the complaint along with all supporting documents. The counsel prayed that the impugned order be set aside and that the respondents be directed to supply a complete set of the complaint along with all the relevant documents.
For the Respondent
The respondents denied the contentions raised by the appellant. They submitted that the respondents had earlier filed Consumer Complaint No. CC/1784/2008 against the appellant before the State Commission, which was withdrawn due to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction, with liberty to file the complaint before the appropriate Commission. Thereafter, the respondents filed the same complaint before the District Commission pursuant to the enactment of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The respondents further submitted that the complaint was identical to the earlier complaint, and therefore, they proposed to rely upon the annexures filed in the previous complaint and no new documents were filed. They contended that the appellant failed to file the written statement within the stipulated period, and therefore, the District Commission rightly struck off the right of the appellant to file the written statement.
The Court's Analysis
The Commission examined the provisions of Section 38(2)(a) read with Section 49(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which mandates that the District Commission shall refer a copy of the admitted complaint, within 21 days from the date of its admission, 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 may be granted by it. The Commission noted that the written version/written statement against the consumer complaint should be preferred within a period of 30 days or extended period of 15 days as granted by it, from the date of receipt of the copy of the complaint along with notice.
The Commission observed that the respondents had earlier filed Consumer Complaint No. CC/1784/2008 before the State Commission, which was withdrawn on the ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction, with liberty to file the same before the appropriate Commission. Thereafter, pursuant to the enactment of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the respondents filed the present complaint before the District Commission. The Commission noted that the appellant had specifically brought to the notice of the District Commission that it had not been supplied with the complete set of the complaint along with the supporting documents.
The Commission further noted that the matter was referred to mediation, which failed, and the matter was taken up again before the District Commission on 28.11.2023. On the same day, the counsel for the respondents submitted that the complaint along with the documents would be supplied to the Appellant during the course of the day. However, the annexures relied upon by the respondents in the earlier complaint were not supplied to the appellant. The respondents admitted in the reply filed to the present appeal that the documents relied upon in support of the complaint were not supplied to the appellant, as the complaint filed before the District Commission was identical to the earlier complaint, and they intended to rely upon the annexures filed in the earlier complaint.
The Commission held:
"From the above discussion, it is clear that the period prescribed under Section 38(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for filing the written statement commences only after the Opposite Party receives a copy of the complaint along with the documents relied upon by the Complainant. In the present case, although the complaint was re-filed before the District Commission after its withdrawal from this Commission, the Respondents failed to supply the complete set of the complaint along with the annexures relied upon by them. Consequently, we are of the view that the District Commission was not justified in striking off the right of the Appellant to file the written statement without satisfying itself that the complete set of the complaint along with all the supporting documents had been supplied to the Appellant."
The Verdict
The appeal was allowed. The impugned order dated 15.01.2024 passed by the District Commission was set aside. The respondents were directed to supply a complete set of the complaint along with all the annexures/documents relied upon by them to the appellant within one month from the date of the order. Upon receipt of the complete set of the complaint along with the annexures, the appellant was directed to file its written statement before the District Commission within the period prescribed under Section 38(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Procedural Fairness Is Non-Negotiable
- Complainants must ensure that a complete set of the complaint along with all supporting documents is supplied to the opposite party before the limitation period for filing the written statement commences.
- The limitation period for filing the written statement under Section 38(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 commences only after the opposite party receives a complete set of the complaint along with all supporting documents.
Courts Must Verify Compliance
- Courts must satisfy themselves that the complete set of the complaint along with all supporting documents has been supplied to the opposite party before striking off the right to file a written statement.
- The mere assertion by a party that documents have been supplied is insufficient; the court must verify the actual supply of documents.
Mediation Proceedings Do Not Waive Compliance
- Mediation proceedings do not absolve parties of their obligation to supply complete documents to enable a meaningful defense.
- Parties must ensure compliance with procedural requirements even during mediation or other alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.
