TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
- Whether the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (District Commission) was justified in refusing to take on record the written statement filed by the Petitioner on the ground of delay beyond the prescribed limitation period.
- Whether the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (State Commission) erred in upholding the District Commission's order refusing condonation of delay in filing the written statement.
- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to entertain the present Writ Petition challenging the revisional order passed by the State Commission.
- Whether the Petitioner's plea that it did not receive the complete set of documents along with the summons, thereby justifying the delay in filing the written statement, is tenable.
- Whether the Whatsapp conversation produced by the Petitioner can be considered as valid evidence to establish non-receipt of complete documents.
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227
The Court examined its jurisdiction to entertain the present petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. It was noted that the petition challenges a revisional order passed by the State Commission, which is a judicial tribunal vested with powers to conclusively determine rights between parties under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The Court referred to authoritative precedent which clarified that bodies empowered by statute to conclusively determine rights of parties in controversy are tribunals within the meaning of Article 227 and 136 of the Constitution. The Court observed that while the appropriate procedural course would have been to file a Civil Miscellaneous Main (CMM) Petition under Article 226, the Petitioner chose to file a composite Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227. The Court, exercising its appellate and supervisory jurisdiction, proceeded to examine the matter on merits to avoid further delay.
Justification for refusal to condone delay in filing written statement
The District Commission had refused to condone a seven-day delay in filing the written statement, holding that the Petitioner had received the complete set of complaint documents along with the summons on 23.12.2022, but filed the written statement only on 31.01.2023, beyond the prescribed 30-day period. The District Commission relied on postal receipts, weight of documents, and postal charges to conclude that the Petitioner's claim of incomplete documents was not bona fide. The Commission found that the Petitioner attempted to gain time by falsely claiming non-receipt of annexures, as evidenced by the identical weight and postage of the registered article sent to the Petitioner and the Respondent. The Court noted that the District Commission had meticulously analyzed the facts and found no satisfactory or natural course of events to justify the delay.
Petitioner's plea of non-receipt of complete documents and use of Whatsapp conversation
The Petitioner sought to demonstrate non-receipt of complete documents by producing screenshots of Whatsapp conversations with the Respondent. The Court observed that these conversations were neither produced before the State Commission nor referred to in its order. The Court held that such electronic communications cannot be treated as evidence without proper certification as mandated under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Consequently, the Court declined to rely on the Whatsapp chats to overturn the findings of the District and State Commissions.
Legal framework on limitation for filing written statement
The Court referred to Section 38(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which mandates that the opposite party must file their version of the case within 30 days of receiving the complaint copy, extendable by a further 15 days at the discretion of the District Commission. The Court noted that the summons and complaint documents were received by the Petitioner on 23.12.2022, making the last date for filing the written statement 21.01.2023. The Petitioner filed the written statement on 31.01.2023 without valid justification for delay. The Court found no error in the District Commission's refusal to condone the delay.
Scope of judicial review by the High Court
The Court emphasized that under Article 226, it does not act as a court of appeal over findings of fact by tribunals. The High Court's interference is limited to instances where the tribunal acted without jurisdiction, violated principles of natural justice, or its decision is perverse or arbitrary. Since the District Commission's order was reasoned and based on material evidence, the Court found no ground to interfere.
3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS
"An authority other than a court may be vested by statute with judicial power in widely different circumstances... any outside authority empowered by the State to determine conclusively the rights of two or more contending parties with regard to any matter in controversy between them satisfies the test of an authority vested with the judicial powers of the State and may be regarded as a tribunal within the meaning of Article 136."
"The High Court does not sit as a Court of appeal and the Court is only concerned with the question as to whether the Tribunal has or has not acted without jurisdiction or contravened the principles of natural justice in the exercise of its jurisdiction."
"The Whatsapp conversations cannot be read as evidence without there being a proper certificate as mandated under the Evidence Act, 1872."
"The District Commission's refusal to condone delay in filing the written statement is based on a detailed analysis of postal records and material evidence, and the plea of non-receipt of complete documents is held to be not bona fide."
Core principles established include the limited scope of judicial review over consumer forums' orders, the importance of adhering to prescribed limitation periods under the Consumer Protection Act, and the inadmissibility of uncertified electronic communications as evidence in such proceedings.
Final determinations are that the District Commission's and State Commission's orders refusing condonation of delay and rejecting the Petitioner's written statement filed beyond limitation are upheld. The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
