In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has instructed the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) to evaluate an application for condoning a 285-day delay in filing a written statement. This directive came in the context of a consumer dispute, where the application was submitted before the landmark decision in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (P) Ltd. (2020), commonly known as “New India Assurance 2.”
Under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, written statements are required to be filed within a maximum of 45 days. However, differing judicial interpretations on whether this timeframe was mandatory or merely advisory led to the matter being referred to a larger bench. The Constitution Bench in New India Assurance 2 ruled that compliance with this 45-day limit was indeed mandatory, but its decision was to be applied prospectively.
The bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma observed that since the delay condonation application in this case was submitted before the New India Assurance 2 verdict, the defendant’s request could not be dismissed outright. Instead, it required a thorough examination based on its merits.
The ruling underscores a nuanced judicial approach, noting that although New India Assurance 2 established strict adherence to the 45-day rule, applications filed before this decision must be assessed individually. The Court cited previous judgments, including Diamond Exports v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2022), which reinforced the idea that applications pending before March 4, 2020, should be given due consideration rather than being summarily rejected.
In light of this, the Supreme Court set aside the NCDRC’s previous order and mandated that the application in question be reviewed on its merits, ensuring that the defendant’s arguments are fully heard.
The appeal was thus allowed, offering a critical precedent for similar cases filed before the New India Assurance 2 decision.
