VIBHA BAKSHI GOKHALE & ANR.versusM/S. GRUHASHILP CONSTRUCTIONS & ORS.

                          [2019] 8 S.C.R. 709                            709


              VIBHA BAKSHI GOKHALE & ANR.                                A
                                  v.
        M/S. GRUHASHILP CONSTRUCTIONS & ORS.
                  (Civil Appeal No. 4767 of 2019)
                           MAY 10, 2019                                  B
        [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
                     HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
       Consumer Protection Act, 1986: Deficiency of service –
Dispute pertained to a residential flat which was allegedly booked       C
by the appellant – Appellant filed complaint before National
Commission in 2016 – On 1611.2018, National Commission passed
order granting last opportunity to file rejoinder and evidence – By
impugned order, National commission dismissed the complaint
observing that the complainant was granted last opportunity to file
                                                                         D
rejoinder and evidence which he failed to do may be for the reason
that the complainant may not have any merit in his case – On appeal,
held: The purpose for setting up the National Commission was to
protect the rights of consumers to seek access to justice under the
Consumer Protection Act – In the instant case, there was a conditional
order dated 16.11.2018 requiring the appellants to file a rejoinder      E
and evidence within a period of four weeks, failing which the
complaint would be dismissed automatically – On 15.2.2019, the
National Commission declined to grant any further time to the
appellants and, proceeded to observe that there was a delay in filing
a rejoinder and evidence and that it was perhaps because the
                                                                         F
appellants did not have any merit in the case – This inference was
unwarranted – The ground for rejection of the complaint was
technical and in disregard of the requirements of substantial justice
– Orders of such nature detract from the true purpose for which the
Commission was established – Such dismissals only add to the burden
of litigation and defeat the purpose of ensuring justice in the          G
consumer fora – 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
                                                                         H
                                 709
710             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A     penalise a bona fide litigant for marginal delays that may occur in
      the judicial process – Impugned order of the National Commission
      dated 15.2.2019 and Consumer Complaint is restored to the file of
      the National Commission.
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4767
B     of 2019.
           From the Judgment and Order dated 15.02.2019 of the National
      Consumer 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, Shryansh
C     Aggarwal, Rajesh Goyal, H. Arjun and P. K. Jain, Advs. for the
      Appellants.
             The following Order of the Court was passed:
                                    ORDER
D           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:
E
                “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:
F               “Complainant has not filed the rejoinder. Proxy counsel is
                present on behalf of the main counsel 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 complaint shall stand dismissed automatically.”
G                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.

      1
H         “NCDRC”
  VIBHA BAKSHI GOKHALE & ANR. v. M/S. GRUHASHILP                                 711
              CONSTRUCTIONS & ORS.

          As per the order dated 16.11.2018, the matter already stands           A
       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         B
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               C
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           D
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.                                                                            E
       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           F
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.
                                                                                 G
      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.
                                                                                 H
712              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A            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.

B
      Devika Gujral                                            Appeal disposed of.




C




D




E




F




G




H