1

Reportable  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No. 4767 of 2019

Vibha Bakshi Gokhale & Anr.             .... Appellant(s)

      Versus

M/s Gruhashilp Constructions & Ors.             ....Respondent(s)

O R D E R

1 The appellants have filed a complaint before the National Consumer Disputes

Redressal  Commission1,  complaining  of  a  deficiency  of  service  on  the  part  of  the

respondents.  The dispute pertains to a residential flat, which was allegedly booked by

the appellants.  On 15 February 2019, the NCDRC dismissed the complaint, in terms of

the following directions:

“Learned counsel for the complainant states that further time may be provided to him for filing the rejoinder and evidence in the matter.   This consumer complaint is of  2016.   The last order dated 16.11.2018, reads as under:

“Complainant  has  not  filed  the  rejoinder.   Proxy counsel is present on behalf  of the main counsel for the complainant.  Last opportunity is granted to the complainant to file the rejoinder and evidence within  a  period  of  four  weeks,  failing  which  the

1 “NCDRC”

2

complaint shall stand dismissed automatically.”

In spite of the above order the complainant has not been able to file the rejoinder and affidavit of evidence.  It seems that the complainant may not be having any merit in his case that is why there has been delay in filing rejoinder and evidence.

As per the order dated 16.11.2018, the matter  already stands dismissed and, therefore, no further opportunity can be provided for filing the rejoinder and evidence.  Accordingly, the file be consigned to record room.”

2 We find that the ground for rejection of the complaint is technical and in disregard

of the requirements of substantial justice.  The purpose which Parliament sought to

achieve by setting up the NCDRC is to protect the rights of consumers to seek access

to justice under the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  In the present case, there was a

conditional order dated 16 November 2018 requiring the appellants to file a rejoinder

and evidence within a period of four weeks, failing which the complaint was to stand

dismissed  automatically.  On  15  February  2019,  the  NCDRC declined  to  grant  any

further time to the appellants and, proceeded to observe that it is perhaps because the

appellants do not have any merit in the case, that there was a delay in filing a rejoinder

and evidence. This inference was unwarranted.   

3 We are affirmatively of the view that orders of this nature detract from the true

purpose for which the NCDRC has been established.  The NCDRC should have borne

this in mind instead of rejecting the complaint on a technicality. Such dismissals only

add  to  the  burden  of  litigation  and  defeat  the  purpose  of  ensuring  justice  in  the

consumer fora.

3

4 We have also been repeatedly  observing  that  marginal  delays  are  not  being

condoned  by  the  NCDRC  on  the  ground  that  the  Consumer  Protection  Act  1986

stipulates a period within which a consumer complaint has to be disposed of. Though

the Act stipulates a period for disposing of a consumer complaint, it is also a sobering

reflection that complaints cannot be disposed of due to non-availability of resources and

infrastructure.  In this background, it is harsh to penalise a bona fide litigant for marginal

delays that may occur in the judicial process.  The consumer fora should bear this in

mind so that the ends of justice are not defeated.

5 In view of the fact that the complaint was dismissed on a mere technicality, we

did not consider it necessary to issue notice to the respondent.  We, however, set aside

the impugned order of  the NCDRC dated 15 February 2019 and restore Consumer

Complaint No 1432 of 2016 to the file of the NCDRC.   

6 Learned  counsel  appearing  on  behalf  of  the  appellants  has  stated  that  the

rejoinder and the affidavit of evidence are ready.  These be taken on the record by the

NCDRC.

7 The Appeal is accordingly disposed of.

   …………...…...….......………………........J.

                                                                   [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]

…..…..…....…........……………….…........J.                              [Hemant Gupta]

 New Delhi;  May 10, 2019

4

ITEM NO.9               COURT NO.11               SECTION XVII

              S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Civil Appeal  No(s).4767/2019

VIBHA BAKSHI GOKHALE & ANR.                        Appellant(s)

                               VERSUS

M/S GRUHASHILP CONSTRUCTIONS & ORS.                Respondent(s)

Date : 10-05-2019 This appeal was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :           HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

For Appellant(s) Mr. Saurabh Jain, Adv. Mr. P.K. Goswami, Adv. Mr. S.P. Singh Rathore, Adv. Mr. Ashok K. Sharma, Adv. Mr. Uday Prakash Yadav, Adv. Ms. Anuradha Soni Verma, Adv. Mr. Shryansh Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Goyal, Adv. Mr. H. Arjun, Adv.

                 Mr. P. K. Jain, AOR                     For Respondent(s)                      

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following                               O R D E R

The  Appeal  is  disposed  of  in  terms  of  the  signed

reportable order.

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

 (SANJAY KUMAR-I)                (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR)      AR-CUM-PS                           COURT MASTER

(Signed reportable order is placed on the file)