Supreme Court cracks slides of Consumer Law to shape it with drastic change

(Judgments during 2021)

Year 2019 was a table - turning year when Consumer Protection Act 1986 was repealed and was replaced by the Act 2019. It was further a new chapter opened when it came into force in July 2020. Consequently year  2021 was full of queries ,debates and implementation problems arising out of new situations that emerged from repeal of old consumer protection act.

Supreme Court has tried to solve all the matters which came before it for adjudication. It also took cognigence of some vital issues which were affecting the consumer rights in some or the other way and in spite of having such good law in their favour, they were sufferer at the end.

Certain cases decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the year 2021 are bench-mark judgments which will ever be remembered history making law

CASE 1.

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

Ref. Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd v. Govindan Raghavan.

 

Law Point –One sided unreasonable clauses in the contracts

Wholly one-sided terms of the Apartment Buyer‘s Agreement, which are entirely loaded in favour of the Developer, and against the allottee at every step are not acceptable

.

"We are of the view that the incorporation of such one-sided and unreasonable clauses in the Apartment Buyer's Agreement constitutes an unfair trade practice under Section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act. An "unfair contract" has been defined under the 2019 Act, and powers have been conferred on the State Consumer Fora and the National Commission to declare contractual terms which are unfair, as null and void. In view of the above, we hold that the Developer cannot compel the apartment buyers to be bound by the one-sided contractual terms contained in the Apartment Buyer's Agreement."

CASE-2

Narinder Chopra V/S Jaiprakash Associates (NC)

Consumer Complaint No 3258 0f 2017along with IA 330 of 2021&IA 1130 Of 2021

Decided On 16.5.2021

Law Points:  

1.  Whether pending matters are to be transferred to appropriate commission after enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction 

The Bench observed

There is no provision for transfer of pending cases in the new Act of 2019. Hence coming to some conclusion, it is necessary to look into the following aspects 

!)Clear words indicative of either an express intent or an intent by necessary implication would be necessary to achieve this result. The Act of 2019 contains no such indication.

!!)The transitional provisions contained in Sections 31, 45 and 56 expressly indicate that the adjudicatory personnel who were functioning as Members of the District Commission, SCDRC and NCDRC under the erstwhile legislation shall continue to hold office under the new legislation. Such provisions are necessary because persons appointed to the consumer fora under the Act of 1986 would have otherwise demitted office on the repeal of the legislation. Similar intend can be presumed for transfer of cases also when it is specifically mentioned in section 107 to continue with the same arrangement so far it is not inconsistent to the new act

!!!)Previous decisions of the NCDRC which had interpreted amendments that enhanced pecuniary jurisdiction, with prospective effect. The NCDRC, in Southfield Paints and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.58 construed amending Act 62 of 2002 by which the pecuniary limits of jurisdiction were enhanced with effect from 15 March 2003 as prospective by relying on its earlier decision in Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Dr Manoj Ramachandran, where the NCDRC held that the amendments enhancing the pecuniary jurisdiction are prospective in nature

v)Section 6 of General clauses act 1897 makes it clear that pending proceedings will not be impacted in any manner

 

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 Points

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”

Continue to next page ....

Previous

Next