Three
Judges Bench of Supreme Court, answering a reference to it in New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., has
reiterated that the District Consumer Forum can grant a further period of 15
days (after the expiry of initial 30 days) to the opposite party for filing his
version or reply and not beyond that.
ISSUE
The issue is within
which time the opponent has to give
his version to the District Forum in pursuance of a complaint filed by the
complainant to the consumer forum under the provisions of section 12 of the Consumer
Protection Act.
LAW
13. Procedure on admission of complaint
– (1) ...............
(2) The District Forum shall, if the complaints
admitted by it under Section 12 relates to goods in respect of which the
procedure specified in sub-section (1) cannot be followed, or if the complaint
relates to any services, –
(a) refer a copy of such complaint to
the opposite party directing him to give his version of the case within a
period of thirty days or such extended period not exceeding fifteen days as may
be granted by the District Forum;
(b) ---------------
DR.
J.J. MERCHANT CASE DECIDED ON 2002
In this case, a three judge bench of Apex
Court had held “there is legislative mandate to the District Forum or the
Commissions to dispose of the complaints as far as possible within prescribed
time of three months by adhering strictly to the procedure prescribed under the
Act. The opposite party has to submit its version within 30 days from the date
of the receipt of the complaint by him and Commission can give at the most
further 15 days for some unavoidable reasons to file its version.”
KAILASH
CASE DECIDED ON 2005
In this case, another Three judges bench, held
that limit of 90 days, as prescribed by the proviso to Rule 1 of Order 8 of the
Civil Procedure Code, is not mandatory,but directory in nature, and further
time for filing reply can be granted, if the circumstances are such that
require grant of further time for filing the reply. In this case, Dr JJ
Merchant case was also discussed and it was held that the observations made in
that case, to the extent it deal with the Rule 1 of Order 8 of CPC was obiter.
VIEW HELD (EARLIER DECISION PREVAILS)
The Apex
court said that since the issue discussed in Dr J.J. Merchant case is identical
to the issue in the present case, it holds the field and not the latter view in
Kailash case, since it deals with CPC provisions.
Also the law laid down
in the Dr. J.J. Merchant case was decided on
2002, which is earlier in time and will prevail, but even a Bench of coordinate strength of this Court, which
had decided the case of Kailash (decided on 2005) was bound by the view taken
by a three-Judge Bench in the case of Dr. J.J. Merchant. As per the law laid down the subsequent Court
ought to have respected the view expressed by the earlier Court. The established
legal positions which are summarized below cannot be ignored:
(1) The law laid
down by this Court in a decision delivered by a Bench of larger strength is
binding on any subsequent Bench of lesser or co-equal strength.
(2) A Bench of
lesser quorum cannot disagree or dissent from the view of the law taken by a
Bench of larger quorum. In case of doubt all that the Bench of lesser quorum
can do is to invite the attention of the Chief Justice and request for the
matter being placed for hearing before a Bench of larger quorum than the Bench
whose decision has come up for consideration. It will be open only for a Bench
of coequal strength to express an opinion doubting the correctness of the view taken
by the earlier Bench of coequal strength, whereupon the matter may be placed
for hearing before a Bench consisting of a quorum larger than the one which
pronounced the decision laying down the law the correctness of which is
doubted.
(3) The above rules
are subject to two exceptions: (i) The above said rules do not bind the
discretion of the Chief Justice in whom vests the power of framing the roster
and who can direct any particular matter to be placed for hearing before any
particular Bench of any strength; and
(ii) In spite of
the rules laid down hereinabove, if the matter has already come up for hearing
before a Bench of larger quorum and that Bench itself feels that the view of
the law taken by a Bench of lesser quorum, which view is in doubt, needs
correction or reconsideration then by way of exception (and not as a rule) and
for reasons given by it, it may proceed to hear the case and examine the
correctness of the previous decision in question dispensing with the need of a
specific reference or the order of Chief Justice constituting the Bench and
such listing.
Prepared by: S. Hemanth
Advocate at Hemanth &
Associates
