The Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has clarified that the 30-day limitation period for filing a written statement under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 commences only upon receipt of the complete complaint along with all annexures, not from the mere service of notice. Setting aside a District Commission order that had closed the right to file a written statement, the Commission directed the complainant to supply the full paper book within 30 days and granted the finance company a further 30 days to respond.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The revisionist, Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd., a non-banking finance company with its registered office in Chennai and a branch office in Dehradun, faced a consumer complaint (No. 120 of 2024) filed by Sh. Vishal Sharma, a resident of Roorkee, Haridwar. The complaint was directed against the finance company and another party. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haridwar issued notice to the revisionist on 19.12.2024, fixing 06.03.2025 for filing objections or hearing.
Key Facts
- On the first hearing date, 06.03.2025, the revisionist filed an application (Paper No. 10 of the original record) stating that its branch office had been served with an incomplete copy of the consumer complaint and that none of the supporting documents or annexures filed by the complainant had been received.
- The revisionist prayed that the complainant be directed to provide the complete paper book to its counsel and that 30 days' time be granted thereafter for filing the written statement.
- The postal receipts dated 24.12.2024 (on the back of Paper No. 9 of the original record) showed that the notices sent to the opposite parties weighed 35 gms and 38 gms respectively, with postage charges of Rs. 40/- and Rs. 42/-.
- The index of the consumer complaint at Paper No. 3 listed 43 documents, which the Commission found could not possibly have been sent in envelopes of such low weight and postage value.
- The District Commission made only a passing mention of the application in its order dated 06.03.2025 and passed no substantive order on it.
- Subsequently, by order dated 22.05.2025, the District Commission closed the opportunity for the revisionist to file its written statement.
- The revisionist then filed a review application dated 30.05.2025 (Paper Nos. 15/1 to 15/3), which the District Commission rejected by order dated 23.09.2025.
Procedural History
- 19.12.2024: District Commission issued notice to revisionist, fixing 06.03.2025 for objection/hearing
- 06.03.2025: Revisionist filed application for complete paper book and time to file written statement (Paper No. 10)
- 06.03.2025: District Commission order mentions application but passes no order
- 22.05.2025: District Commission closes opportunity to file written statement
- 30.05.2025: Revisionist files review application (Paper Nos. 15/1 to 15/3)
- 23.09.2025: District Commission rejects review application (impugned order)
- 02.01.2026: Revision petition admitted by State Commission (SC/5/RP/14/2025)
- 01.09.2026: State Commission directs ex-parte proceedings against opposite party
- 08.09.2026: Final hearing
- 09.09.2026: Judgment pronounced
Relief Sought
The revisionist sought setting aside of the impugned order dated 23.09.2025, allowance of its application dated 06.03.2025 for supply of complete complaint with annexures and 30 days' time to file written statement, and remand to the District Commission for further proceedings in accordance with law.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the 30-day limitation period for filing a written statement under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 begins to run from the date of service of notice of the complaint, or from the date of actual receipt of the complete complaint along with all supporting documents and annexures by the opposite party.
Arguments Presented
For the Revisionist
Counsel for the revisionist contended that the application dated 06.03.2025 was entirely justified because the postal receipts demonstrated that the notices sent on 24.12.2024 weighed only 35 gms and 38 gms with postage of Rs. 40/- and Rs. 42/-, which was insufficient to contain the 43 documents listed in the complaint index. The revisionist relied on the Supreme Court judgment in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., reported in II (2020) CPJ 1 (SC) = (2020) 5 SCC 757, which held that the commencing point of the 30-day limitation period is the date of receipt of the notice accompanied by the complaint, not mere receipt of the notice alone.
For the Respondent
The opposite party, Sh. Vishal Sharma, did not appear before the State Commission despite sufficient service of notice. The Commission proceeded ex-parte against him vide order dated 01.09.2026. No counter-arguments were presented on record.
The Court's Analysis
The Commission, per President Ms. Kumkum Rani, examined the record and found that the revisionist's application dated 06.03.2025 was "completely justified" for the simple reason that the postal receipts conclusively showed the notices sent on 24.12.2024 could not have contained the 43 documents mentioned in the complaint index. The Commission observed:
"In such a less weight and for such an amount, 43 documents as mentioned in the index of the consumer complaint at Paper No. 3 of the original record, can not be sent."
The Commission then turned to the binding precedent of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., which had authoritatively settled that:
"the commencing point of limitation of 30 days' would be from the date of receipt of the notice accompanied with the complaint by the opposite party, and not mere receipt of the notice of the complaint."
Applying this principle, the Commission held that since the complete copy of the consumer complaint along with annexures was not supplied to the revisionist, the limitation period of 30 days for filing the written statement would start from the date of supplying the complete complaint with annexures, and not prior to that. The District Commission's rejection of the review application dated 30.05.2025 was therefore unjustified. The Commission emphasized that the District Commission had failed to pass any order on the legitimate application dated 06.03.2025 and had instead closed the right to file a written statement by order dated 22.05.2025, which was contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court.
The Verdict
The revision petition was allowed. The impugned order dated 23.09.2025 passed by the District Commission, rejecting the review application dated 30.05.2025, was set aside. Consequently, the application dated 06.03.2025 (Paper No. 10) moved by the revisionist stands allowed. The complainant (opposite party) is directed to furnish the complete copy of the consumer complaint along with documents/annexures to learned counsel for the revisionist within 30 days from the date of this order (09.09.2026). Thereafter, 30 days' time and no more shall be granted to the revisionist for filing the written statement. The District Commission shall proceed further with the consumer complaint in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. The parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 05.10.2026. No order as to costs.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Limitation Period Triggered by Complete Service
The judgment reinforces that the statutory limitation period for filing a written statement under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 does not commence until the opposite party receives the complete complaint with all annexures. Practitioners must:
- Verify the completeness of service at the first hearing date
- File an immediate application if annexures are missing, citing New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.
- Ensure the application is placed on record with supporting evidence (postal receipts, weight, document count)
Procedural Safeguards for Opposite Parties
- A mere mention of an application in the order sheet without a substantive ruling does not constitute disposal
- Closing the right to file a written statement while a legitimate application for complete papers is pending is procedurally impermissible
- Review applications challenging such closure must be decided on merits, not dismissed summarily
Practical Takeaways for Consumer Litigation
- Document the service defect: Obtain and preserve postal receipts showing weight and postage to prove incomplete service
- Act on the first date: File the application for complete papers on the very first hearing date to avoid waiver arguments
- Cite the Supreme Court precedent: New India Assurance (2020) 5 SCC 757 is the governing authority on when limitation begins
- Seek specific timelines: The Commission's direction of 30 days for supply and 30 days for response provides a clear template for similar applications
