Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Developer filed written submissions – Defiance of earlier order of Supreme Court closing Developer’s right to file a written statement: Held: The Supreme Court passed an order closing the right of the Respondent to file a written statement in the proceedings before the NCDRC, however, the Order permitted the Respondent to participate in the proceedings – The Respondent is bound by the earlier Order of the Supreme Court, and could have not been permitted to introduce its case through written submissions – The objections raised by the Respondent cannot be looked to the extent it carried pleadings, which could have been let in through a written statement. [Paras 13, 18]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Impact of forfeiture of opportunity to file written statement – Party would have the right to participate in the proceedings and cross-examine the witnesses:
Held: All the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are not applicable to proceedings before Consumer Forums under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, except to the extent it is provided under Section 38(9) of the Consumer Protection Act – In the absence of specific provisions dealing with the consequence of forfeiture of the right to file a written statement, it is appropriate to refer to the provisions in the CPC to know the general law on this question – Reliance placed on the Judgment in Nanda Dulal Pradhan & Anr. vs. Dibakar Pradhan & Anr. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 822, which laid down that even if the defendant/opposite party failed to file a written statement and, in that matter, even if forfeiture of the right to file written statement has occasioned, it would not disentitle the party from participating the proceedings before the court, without filing a written statement – In such circumstances, the said party would also be have the right to cross-examine the witness(es), if any, of the plaintiff/complainant – Closure of the right to file written statement bars the party from bringing in pleadings, indirectly to introduce its case. [Paras 14, 18]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order VI – A party cannot make out a case on the basis of evidence for which he has laid no foundation in the pleadings:
Held: Order VI Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC provide that every pleading shall contain only a statement of the facts, but not the evidence by which it is to be proved – The rigours of the rule of pleadings is evident from Rule 7 of Order VI, CPC, which mandates that ‘no pleading shall, except by way of amendment, raise any new ground of claim or contain any allegation of fact inconsistent with the previous pleadings of the party pleading the same’ – Reliance placed on the Judgment of a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Nalini Sunder vs. GV Sunder AIR 2003 Kar 86, wherein it was held that a party could not make out a case on the basis of evidence for which he/she has laid no foundation in the pleadings.[Paras 16, 17]
Civil law – Forfeiture to file written statement does not by itself make it obligatory to pass an order in favour of the Complainant: Held: Even when the opposite party’s right to file a written statement is forfeited, that by itself, will not make it obligatory on the part of the NCDRC to pass an order in favour of the complainant, in case the complainant failed to establish its case – This power is to be read into the jurisdiction of a body with adjudicating power – There is a difference between a situation of non-filing of a written statement owing to forfeiture of the right to file a written statement and absence of denial of specific pleadings of complainant in the written statement. In the latter case, absence of denial of specific pleadings on facts they can be taken as admitted. [Para 19]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Vidhi Thaker, Hony. Associate Editor (Verified by: Kanu Agrawal, Adv.). Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.