2019 (5) TMI 438 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Criticizes Consumer Disputes Commission, Emphasizes Due Diligence in Appellate Evidence

The Supreme Court allowed the Civil Appeal, overturning the decisions of the State and National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions. The Court ... Production of additional evidence before the State Commission in the pending Appeal - production of additional evidence at the appellate stage - HELD THAT:- A party can produce additional evidence at the appellate stage, if it establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within its knowledge, or could not even after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by it at the time when the decree appealed against was passed. These documents are of relevance to establish that the Appellants are not in a position to obtain the Occupancy Certificate from the MCGM until the unauthorized structures, which are in violation of the approved plans, are removed. In the absence of these documents, the Appellants would not be in a position to substantiate their case that they are unable to obtain the Occupancy Certificate, and comply with the directions issued by the District Forum. The State Commission was in error by rejecting the Application filed by the Appellants under Order XLI Rule 27, CPC by merely stating that the documents are “not necessary”. The said Order is an unreasoned one. The State Commission must have taken a holistic view of the matter - the Interim Order dated 10.12.2015 passed by the State Commission is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the State Commission to take the additional documents on record, and decide the Appeal on merits in accordance with law - Appeal allowed. Issues:Challenge to Order of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission; Permission to file additional documents under Order XLI Rule 27, CPC.Analysis:1. The Civil Appeal was filed to challenge the Order dated 16.03.2018 by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which upheld the Interim Order passed by the State Commission rejecting the Appellants' Application under Order XLI Rule 27, CPC to file additional documents.2. The background facts involved the Appellants being owners of a plot of land and a building in Mumbai. The Respondent Housing Society filed a complaint alleging failure to provide services, obtain necessary certificates, and execute deeds. The District Forum partially ruled in favor of the Respondent, directing the Appellants to comply within specified timelines and make refunds.3. The Appellants appealed to the State Commission, where they sought to introduce new documents post-appeal filing. The State Commission rejected the Application, deeming the documents unnecessary. The Appellants then filed a Revision Petition before the National Commission, which also dismissed their plea based on the documents' non-existence during the District Forum proceedings.4. The Supreme Court analyzed the legal provisions under Order XLI Rule 27, CPC, emphasizing the need for due diligence in presenting additional evidence at the appellate stage. The Court found the documents crucial to the Appellants' case regarding compliance with directives and inability to obtain certificates due to unauthorized structures.5. The Court criticized the State Commission's unreasoned rejection of the Application and overturned both the State and National Commission's decisions. The Civil Appeal was allowed, directing the State Commission to admit the additional documents and decide the Appeal promptly, considering the prolonged pendency since 2013.This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment comprehensively, highlighting the key aspects of the case and the Court's reasoning behind its decision.