New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.

In this definitive 5-Judge Constitution Bench milestone on consumer litigation, Justice Vineet Saran authoritatively settled the long-standing controversy surrounding the extension of time for filing written versions under the Consumer Protection Act. Resolving conflict between the 3-Judge Bench in J.J. Merchant v. Shrinath Chaturvedi (2002) and Kailash v. Nanhku (2005), the Supreme Court ruled that the Consumer Protection Act is a special statute enacted for the speedy and summary disposal of consumer disputes. Section 13(2)(a) explicitly prescribes that the opposite party must file its response within 30 days, with a maximum extension of not exceeding 15 days. The words 'not exceeding 15 days' operate as an absolute legislative cap. Consumer Commissions (District, State, and National) have no power or inherent discretion under any circumstance to condone delay beyond 45 days, and any written version filed after 45 days cannot be taken on record.

• Inflexible 45-Day Absolute Limitation: 30 days plus maximum 15 days extension is an insurmountable statutory ceiling.
• Zero Inherent Power to Extend: Consumer forums cannot invoke inherent powers or Section 5 Limitation Act to condone delay beyond 45 days.
• Overruling Conflicting Precedents: Confirmed J.J. Merchant (2002) and held Kailash v. Nanhku (governing CPC Order VIII Rule 1) inapplicable to consumer forums.
• Commencement of Limitation: The 30-day clock begins on the date of receipt of notice along with the complete copy of the complaint.
• Expeditious Justice for Consumers: Prevents corporate opposite parties (banks, insurers, builders) from stalling summary consumer justice.

The respondent Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. filed a consumer complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) claiming Rs. 2.4 crores for damage to stored potatoes due to cold storage plant failure.

Notice was served on the insurer New India Assurance Co. Ltd. on 13 December 2010.

The insurer failed to file its written version within 30 days, or even within the extended 15-day period, attempting to file it on 16 March 2011 (after nearly 90 days) with an application for condonation of delay.

The NCDRC refused to condone the delay and rejected the written version, relying on J.J. Merchant.

The insurer appealed to the Supreme Court, relying on Kailash v. Nanhku and Topline Shoes to contend that the 45-day limitation was directory and could be extended in the interests of justice.

A 3-Judge Bench referred the question to a 5-Judge Constitution Bench for definitive resolution.

The question referred to this Constitution Bench is whether Section 13(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which provides for filing of the response by the opposite party within 30 days or such extended period not exceeding 15 days, is mandatory or directory. On a plain reading of Section 13(2)(a), it is clear that the legislature has provided that the opposite party shall give his version within a period of 30 days or such extended period not exceeding 15 days as may be granted by the District Forum. The use of the word 'shall' along with the words 'not exceeding 15 days' leaves no manner of doubt that the statute has prescribed an outer limit of 45 days. The Consumer Protection Act was enacted for the protection of the interests of consumers and for providing a speedy and simple redressal mechanism. If the consumer forums were given the discretion to extend the time beyond 45 days, the very object of summary and expeditious disposal within three to five months would be completely defeated. The judgment of this Court in Kailash v. Nanhku dealt with Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which is a general procedural law for civil courts where no negative words were used. In Section 13(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, negative words 'not exceeding 15 days' have been specifically used by Parliament. We hold that the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission 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 envisaged under Section 13(2)(a). The view taken in J.J. Merchant states the correct law. The reference is answered accordingly.

• Daddy's Builders (P) Ltd. v. Manisha Bhargava (2021) 3 SCC 669: Affirmed that Hilli Multipurpose applies strictly to Consumer Protection Act 2019 as well.
• Diamond Exports v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2022) 4 SCC 169: Applied Hilli Multipurpose to forfeit insurer's right to file reply after 45 days.
• Dr. V.N. Shrikhande v. Anita Sena Fernandes (2011) 1 SCC 53: Precedent on consumer timelines harmonized with Hilli Multipurpose.
• Kaushik Narsinhbhai Patel v. S.J.R. Prime Corp. (P) Ltd. (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1018: Reaffirmed that builder cannot file written version after 45 days under CPA 2019.