CASE-3

M/s Daddy’s Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus Manisha Bhargava and Another

(Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 1240 of 2021)

Decided on February 11, 2021. Supreme Court Of India

Legal Point

1.      Whether filing of WS by OP  to complaint within 30 days or such extended period, not exceeding 15 days, should be read as mandatory or directory; 

(Condonation of delay in filing written statement before the consumer commissions)

 

2.      What would be the commencing point of limitation of 30 days stipulated under the aforesaid Section? 

 

On the first issue Court referred to the provision of the act 1986 as hereunder

 

“Section 13. Procedure on admission of complaint. – (1) The District Forum shall, on admission of a complaint, if it relates to any goods, ­

(a)  refer a copy of the admitted complaint, within twenty ­one days from the date of its admission to the opposite party mentioned in the complaint 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.

The above provision makes it clear that ‘such extended period not exceeding fifteen days’ meaning thereby exceeding fifteen days is locked thereafter Not only that it also provide ‘such extended period not exceeding fifteen days as may be granted by the District Forum.’

Hence in clear terms, it is held mandatory

On the second issue of commencing point of limitation

Commencing point of limitation of 30 days, under the aforesaid provisions, would be from the date of receipt of notice accompanied by a copy of the complaint, and not merely receipt of the notice, as the response has to be given, within the stipulated time, to the averments made in the complaint and unless a copy of the complaint is served on the opposite party, he would not be in a position to furnish its reply

This  question had come up before this Supreme court earlier  in the case of Dr. J.J. Merchant Dr. J.J. Merchant & Ors. v. Shrinath Chaturvedi, [(2002) 6 SCC 635]  

“whether the Forum can grant time beyond 45 days to the opposite party for filing its version”. After considering the afore stated section in the light of the object with which the Act has been enacted, a three-Judge Bench of this Court came to the conclusion that in no case period beyond 45 days can be granted to the opposite party for filing its version of the case”

 

CASE-4

Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. Versus Abhishek Khanna & Others Civil Appeal No. 5785 Of 2019 (Supreme Court )

Bench -Dr Dhananjaya ,Y Chandrachud,  Indu Malhotra, Indira Banerjee.

Decided on –January11, 2021

 

Law Point

Whether the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 must be given primacy over the Consumer Protection Act, 1986;

 

Facts

It was contended that the decision of the RERA must be given primacy over the National Commission. The impugned judgment passed by the National Commission was in direct conflict with the judgment passed by the RERA, Haryana since the National Commission had assumed the due date for offer of possession as 23.01.2017. The RERA had held that the due date for delivery of possession of apartments under the Agreement was 27.11.2018. RERA had directed the Developer to hand over possession by 30.06.2020, as mentioned in the Registration Certificate filed before the RERA.

Supreme Court in view of the conflicting views taken by the two Fora which exercise original jurisdiction, it is the order of RERA which was upheld on the basis of fact and law and said RERA is a specialized fact-finding authority with respect to real estate projects, and it is the special law which prevail over the general law. RERA has been established under the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 for regulation and promotion of the real estate sector

 

But at the same time Supreme Court also made it clear that both the acts are equal and not conflicting or inconsistent to each other

Observation and Verdict by SC on the issue of Supremacy of RERA Act over CP Act

 

·         Consumer Protection Act Act not in derogation of any other law. The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. This was clear in section 3 of CP Act 1986 and also Section 100 of CP Act 2019

 

Supporting Case 1

Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society v. M. Lalitha (dead) through this Court held that. ‘From the Statement of Objects and Reasons and the scheme of the 1986 Act, it is apparent that the main objective of the Act is to provide for better protection of the interest of the consumer and for that purpose to provide for better redressal, mechanism through which cheaper, easier, expeditious and effective redressal is made available to consumers.’

 

Supporting case-2

·          M/s Imperia Structures Ltd. v. Anil Patni and Anr,  it was held that remedies under the Consumer Protection Act were in addition to the remedies available under special statutes. Section 71(1) of the RERA Act gives a right or an option to the complainant concerned but does not statutorily force him to withdraw such complaint nor do the provisions of the RERA Act create any mechanism for transfer of such pending proceedings to authorities under the RERA Act

 

 

Provisions of CP Act & RERA Act

·         Section 79 of the RERA Act bars any civil proceedings in Real estate matters but does not bar Consumer Commissions  to initiation  proceedings before it, Consumer commissions are not civil courts

·          Section 88 "Application of other laws not barred" - The Real Estate (Regulation and Development Act, 2016) the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.

·         Similar is the provision in Consumer Protection Act 1986 Section -3 and section 100 of CP Act 2019.

·         Section 71(1) of the RERA Act entitles a complainant who had initiated proceedings under the CP Act before the RERA Act came into force, to withdraw the proceedings under the CP Act with the permission of the Forum or Commission and file an appropriate application before the adjudicating officer under the RERA Act

 

Case 5

Indian School, Jodhpur V/S State of Rajasthan Reference: Civil Appeal No. 1724 of 2021: Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari

Date of judgment:  3rd May 2021

Schools were forced to pack up again the second wave of Covid and the classes were moved online. The Supreme Court added that, “overheads and operational costs so saved would be nothing, but an amount undeservedly earned by the varsity without offering such facilities to the students

It was a big news of the year with a relief to the students who suffered due to Covid situation in their academic field.Institues were closed during the lockdown period and classes were taken online, students never went to schools but schools were raising fee bills alongwith annual charges. Number of cases came before the Supreme Court with a plea to direct schools not to charge full fee. Supreme Court considered the concern of parents and directed private schools to give 15% deduction in annual fee and CBSC schools to collect 70% annual fee through a judgment in the above matter.

Case -6

(Cases related to Covid issues )

 

Writ Petition Deepak Raj Singh V/S Union of India SC 8th Sep 2021

 

(Covid crisis and shortage of oxygen are not Medical Negligence says SC 8th Sep 2021)

 

Deepak Raj Singh seeking compensation for families of Covid victims who died due to lack of oxygen & essential healthcare facilities

 

"To assume that each death due to Covid-19 took place due to negligence is too much. Courts cannot have a presumption that all Covid deaths happened due to medical negligence", the Court said.

The Court observed that the second wave of the pandemic affected the entire country

The Bench referred to the suo moto case taken up by the Top Court for various issues related to the Covid pandemic and stated that the National Task Force which was constituted is looking into different aspects of the pandemic.The Bench also stated that the Apex Court has issued directions in a separate judgement dated June 30 in relation to ex- gratia compensation to be provided to affected families

While saying that it cannot direct the Union Government to pay a particular amount as compensation, the Court had directed the National Authority to frame guidelines within 6 weeks on providing ex-gratia assistance to COVID victims.

Similar issue 

Previous

Next