RICARDO CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. [ APPELLANT (s)] Vs. RAVI KUCKIAN & OTHERS [ RESPONDENT(s)]
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9958 OF 2024
(2JB, J.K. MAHESHWARI and RAJESH BINDAL JJ., delivered by Rajesh Bindal, J.)
The Supreme Court recently clarified that in cases under the Consumer Protection Act, the 30-day deadline for an opposing party to respond to a complaint starts from the date the party receives both the notice and a copy of the complaint, not just the notice alone. This ruling came in the context of a civil appeal by Ricardo Constructions Pvt Ltd, challenging an order by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). The NCDRC had denied Ricardo Constructions the right to file a written statement in response to a complaint from Ravi Kuckian and 30 others. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal, allowed the appeal and permitted the appellant to file its written statement.
The crux of the issue was that Ricardo Constructions argued they had not received the complaint copy alongside the notice, making it impossible for them to file a written statement within the prescribed time. The NCDRC had earlier foreclosed their right to file a response, reasoning that over 45 days had passed since the notice had been accepted, and no written statement had been submitted. However, Ricardo Constructions contended that since they had not been served with the complaint, they were deprived of the opportunity to respond effectively. The appellant’s counsel further pointed out that the Commission’s process had been harsh, as there was no record that the complaint copy had been served on the appellant. The company cited the Supreme Court’s 2020 Constitution Bench ruling in New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited, which held that the 30-day limitation period for filing a response begins when both the notice and the complaint are received by the opposite party.
On the other hand, the respondents argued that Ricardo Constructions should have taken the initiative to obtain the complaint copy if they hadn’t received it. They accused the appellant of deliberately delaying the proceedings by failing to submit the written statement within the stipulated 45 days from the date the notice was accepted. The Supreme Court found merit in Ricardo Constructions’ argument, noting that the NCDRC had merely recorded that the appellant’s counsel had accepted the notice but had not confirmed the receipt of the complaint copy. The bench emphasized that without receiving the complaint, the appellant could not be expected to file a written statement, as established by the 2020 Constitution Bench ruling. The Court also criticized the Commission for putting the onus on Ricardo Constructions to seek out the complaint copy, which should have been provided as part of due process. In its judgment, the Supreme Court granted Ricardo Constructions the opportunity to file their written statement by October 14, 2024, subject to the payment of costs amounting to Rs 1,00,000 to each of the 31 complainants. The Court’s ruling reaffirms the principle that procedural fairness must be maintained, ensuring that both the notice and the complaint are served together, giving the opposite party sufficient time to respond.
