A) Abstract / Headnote

This case focuses on the right of a party to participate in legal proceedings after forfeiture of its opportunity to file a written statement. The Supreme Court dealt with whether a developer, who had forfeited its right to file a written statement, could indirectly introduce its case through written submissions. The Court further addressed the scope of participation by such a party and the admissibility of contentions raised outside the framework of law. The judgment elaborates on the effect of forfeiture under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, read with the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in consumer disputes. The Court underscored that forfeiture does not automatically lead to a decision in favor of the complainant and discussed the obligations of adjudicating bodies to consider evidence independently.

Keywords:

1. Forfeiture of right to file written statement
2. Consumer Protection Act, 2019
3. Deficiency in service
4. Adjudicatory power of consumer forums
5. Cross-examination rights

B) Case Details

i) Judgment Cause Title:
Kaushik Narsinhbhai Patel & Ors. v. M/s S.J.R. Prime Corporation Private Limited

ii) Case Number:
Civil Appeal No. 8176 of 2022

iii) Judgment Date:
22 July 2024

iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum:
Hon’ble Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar

vi) Author:
Justice C.T. Ravikumar

vii) Citation:
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 823; 2024 INSC 542

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Section 38(9), Consumer Protection Act, 2019
• Order VI Rules 1, 2 & 7, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case:
None explicitly mentioned.

x) Case is Related to Which Law Subjects:
Consumer Law, Civil Procedure

C) Introduction and Background of Judgment

The appellants, buyers of residential flats from the respondent-developer under a construction agreement dated 31 March 2012, alleged deficiency in service due to significant delays in possession and quality issues in the construction. They approached the NCDRC for relief, which culminated in a partly favorable judgment. The developer’s right to file a written statement was forfeited due to procedural lapses, leading to disputes regarding the validity and scope of its subsequent participation in the proceedings.

D) Facts of the Case

1. The appellants entered into a construction agreement with the respondent, agreeing to a handover deadline of March 2014, with an additional grace period of six months.
2. Despite payments under a construction-linked plan, there were delays of over four years in handing over possession.
3. The appellants sought compensation for delay, refund of car parking charges, and provision of promised amenities.
4. The NCDRC permitted the respondent to file written submissions, despite forfeiture of its right to file a written statement.
5. The appellants challenged the NCDRC’s findings and alleged that the respondent illegally introduced new facts in its written submissions.

E) Legal Issues Raised

i) Whether a party whose right to file a written statement is forfeited can file written submissions introducing new pleadings.

ii) The extent of participation allowed in proceedings post-forfeiture under Section 38(9) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

iii) The effect of forfeiture of written statement rights on the respondent’s ability to contest claims.

iv) Whether the NCDRC erred in its compensation formula and its reliance on certain submissions by the respondent.

F) Petitioners/Appellants’ Arguments

1. Violation of Supreme Court’s Order: The respondent misused the opportunity to file written submissions by introducing new factual contentions, violating the Court’s declaration of forfeiture of its right to file a written statement.

2. Delay in Possession: Compensation should be computed based on the agreed completion date under Clause 6.1 of the Construction Agreement, not the revised formula devised by NCDRC.

3. Refund Claims: Appellants sought refunds for excess charges, including parking fees, legal costs, and other amounts.

4. Scope of Participation: The respondent’s participation should have been limited to cross-examination and not extended to filing written objections or submissions on facts.

G) Respondent’s Arguments

1. Right to Participation: The respondent argued that forfeiture of written statement rights does not exclude its right to participate in proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act.

2. Delay Explained: Written submissions merely explained the reasons for delays and were not equivalent to a written statement.

3. Compensation Formula: The NCDRC’s approach to linking the possession date to the payment schedule was fair and based on circumstances.

H) Related Legal Provisions

i) Consumer Protection Act, 2019: Section 38(9) governs procedure, including forfeiture and participation in proceedings.

ii) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:

• Order VI Rule 1 & 2: Pleadings must state facts concisely without introducing evidence.
• Order VI Rule 7: Amendments cannot introduce inconsistent claims.

I) Judgment

a. Ratio Decidendi:

1. The respondent forfeited its right to file a written statement and was barred from introducing new pleadings through written submissions.
2. The respondent’s participation is limited to cross-examination and addressing legal issues.
3. The NCDRC erred in deviating from the possession timeline agreed in the construction agreement for compensation purposes.

b. Obiter Dicta:

1. Even if the right to file a written statement is forfeited, the complainant must substantiate their case independently.
2. Procedural rights in consumer forums differ significantly from those in civil courts.

c. Guidelines:

1. Parties forfeiting their right to file a written statement must not introduce pleadings indirectly.
2. Compensation for delay should align with the agreed timelines in contractual terms.

J) Conclusion & Comments

The judgment reinforces procedural discipline and limits the scope of participation for defaulting parties. It ensures that consumer forums balance adjudicatory power with procedural fairness, protecting the rights of complainants without undermining the principles of natural justice.

K) References

1. Nanda Dulal Pradhan & Anr. v. Dibakar Pradhan & Anr., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 822.
2. Nalini Sunder v. GV Sunder, AIR 2003 Kar 86.
3. R.V. Prasannakumaar & Others v. Mantri Castles Pvt. Ltd., (2020) 14 SCC 769.
4. Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
5. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.