Safiya Malik

In an order dated November 29, 2024, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), presided over by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, reiterated that in original compalintss for filing written statement, no extension beyond the stipulated 45-day period is permissible under the law. The cases involved allegations against Lucina Land Development Ltd. and Diana Infrastructure Ltd., with the primary focus on the respondents’ failure to adhere to statutory timelines for filing written statements under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The complaints, filed by multiple individuals, centered around grievances related to the respondents' obligations under real estate agreements. The procedural dispute arose when the respondents delayed filing their written replies beyond the prescribed period of 45 days—comprising an initial 30 days and an additional extension of 15 days permissible with the Commisions's discretion. The Commission held that the submissions were filed outside this maximum allowable duration, rendering them inadmissible.

The respondents, in their defense, submitted affidavits asserting that they received the notices on September 29, 2024, thereby justifying their delay as falling within the permissible period. However, evidence presented by the complainants, corroborated by postal records, revealed that the notices were served on September 23, 2024. The discrepancy prompted the complainants to file applications (IA Nos. 17118 and 17079 of 2024) seeking prosecution of the respondents for submitting false affidavits and perjury.

The affidavits stated: “Pursuant thereto, a copy of the Consumer Complaint along with the annexures was received by the Opposite Party on 29.09.2024. Accordingly, the 30 days as prescribed commenced from 30.09.2024. The 30 days for filing the written statement expired on 30.10.2024.” This claim was directly contradicted by the report of the Registry, which confirmed receipt of notice on September 23, 2024.

In response, the respondents admitted the error, attributing it to administrative lapses within their organization. They submitted an unconditional apology, stating that the misrepresentation was unintentional and occurred due to lower-level officials’ misunderstanding of the procedural requirements. Their counsel argued: “There was no willful intention of wrongfully mentioning the date of receipt as 29.09.2024. This possibly was the date when the senior officers might have been apprised of the notice.” The respondents also assured the Commission of their commitment to ensure such lapses would not recur.

The Commission referred to the judgment in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (2020) 5 SCC 757, which underscores the sacrosanct nature of the statutory timeline under the Consumer Protection Act. It reiterated that no extension beyond the stipulated 45-day period is permissible under the law. The tribunal observed: “The procedural timeline for filing written statements is sacrosanct and cannot be extended even by a single day beyond the maximum period of 45 days.”

The applications for prosecution also included allegations against the directors and legal counsels of the respondents. The tribunal dismissed the charges against the counsels, noting: “As per the prevalent practice in the profession, counsel act based on instructions received from their clients. In this case, the counsels drafted the applications based on the information provided by their clients, and they cannot be held liable for any misrepresentation made by the respondents.”

While accepting the respondents’ apology, the Commission issued a warning to ensure future diligence in procedural compliance. It clarified that the right to file written statements was foreclosed but permitted the respondents to participate in the proceedings through written synopses and oral arguments. The tribunal directed: “The written synopsis to be filed by the respondents must be based on existing records, and no new facts or documents may be introduced.”

The cases were listed for further hearing on February 27, 2025. The applications for prosecution (IA Nos. 17118 and 17079 of 2024) were disposed of, and the consumer complaints were directed to proceed on merits.

Case Title: Suman Kumar Mishra & Ors. vs. Lucina Land Development Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number: Consumer Case Nos. 94 and 95 of 2024
Bench: Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Presiding Member

[View/Download order]