Case Title: New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt Ltd.
The Consumer Protection Act's 45-day deadline for providing the opposing party's account of the events in a consumer complaint cannot be exceeded, the Supreme Court held in the given case.
The Court determined that the Consumer Forum was not given the authority to extend the time beyond the 45-day limit by the Consumer Protection Act of 1986. The ruling written by Justice Vineet Saran for the bench said that the time period specified under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act is mandatory and not advisory.
In response to the second query, the Bench decided that the timetable would begin not just with the receipt of the notification but also with the complaint.
On January 29, rulings in the case were reserved by a five-judge panel that included Justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M.R. Shah, and S. Ravindra Bhat.
The question of whether the situation was governed by the law established in Dr.J.J. Merchant & Ors v. Shrinath Chaturvedi or Kailash v. Nankhu & Ors. emerged in the present case. The Kailash case, involving the Election Law and Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, stated that such provisions are not mandatory but rather directory in nature and that, as a result, additional time for filing a reply could be granted in the interest of justice based on the circumstances, contrary to the J.J. Merchant case, which stated that under no circumstances could a period beyond 45 days be granted.
A copy of the complaint must be served on the opposing party when the District Forum receives a complaint made under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the opposing party has 30 days from the date he or she received the copy of the complaint to respond with his or her side of the story. The 15-day extension that the District Forum may provide the opposing party is governed by Section 13(2)(a). The time frame for submitting versions to both the State Commission and the National Commission is the same.
The petitioners, in this case, claimed that denying an extension would go against the audi alteram partem ('let the other side be heard') principle.