The West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed a revision petition challenging a District Forum’s refusal to record a written version filed beyond the statutory 45-day window. The Commission affirmed that the date of receipt of notice must be counted in computing the limitation period and that consumer fora lack power to extend time or condone delay under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose from a consumer complaint filed by the opposite parties (respondents) against M/S Module A Proprietor Firm (petitioner). After notice of the complaint was served on the opposite parties on 10 September 2024, they submitted their written version on 25 October 2024. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata Unit-III (South) declined to take the written version on record, treating it as filed beyond the 45-day limitation period prescribed under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (analogous to Section 38(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019).
Key Facts
- Notice of the complaint was received by the opposite parties on 10.09.2024.
- The written version was filed by the opposite parties on 25.10.2024.
- The impugned order of the District Forum was dated 05.05.2025.
- The revision petition (SC/19/RP/108/2025) and an accompanying condonation-of-delay application (SC/19/IA/1028/2025) were filed thereafter.
- The statutory framework invokes Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, read with the Hilli Multipurpose case precedent, which prescribes a 30-day limitation for filing a response, extendable by 15 days, making a total outer limit of 45 days.
- The Hilli Multipurpose case (Constitution Bench) held that the commencing point of the 30-day period is the date of receipt of the notice accompanied with the complaint, and that the District Forum has no power to extend the response period beyond the 15-day extension.
Procedural History
- 10.09.2024: Notice of the complaint received by the opposite parties.
- 25.10.2024: Opposite parties filed their written version (allegedly on the 46th day if the receipt date is included).
- 05.05.2025: District Forum passed the impugned order refusing to record the written version as time-barred.
- Date not specified: Revision petition (SC/19/RP/108/2025) and condonation-of-delay application (SC/19/IA/1028/2025) filed before the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
- 14.10.2026: Judgment delivered by the Commission (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bibhas Ranjan De, President; Hon’ble Mrs. Mridula Roy, Member).
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- Quashing of the District Forum’s order dated 05.05.2025.
- Direction to the District Forum to take the written version on record and proceed with adjudication.
- Condonation of the delay in filing the written version.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether, under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (read with Section 38(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019), the date of receipt of the notice accompanying the complaint must be included in computing the 45-day limitation period for filing a written version, and whether the District Forum possesses any authority to extend that period or condone delay beyond the statutory outer limit.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel, Prasanta Banerjee, argued that the day of service of notice should be excluded from the computation of time under the General Clauses Act. Consequently, the written version filed on 25.10.2024 fell on the 45th day, within the permissible limit. He relied on principles of statutory interpretation to contend that the District Forum erred in treating the filing as time-barred.
For the Respondent
The respondents’ counsel, Sourav Mukherjee and Ved Sharma, contended that the date of receipt of notice cannot be excluded; the filing on 25.10.2024 was therefore the 46th day, beyond the statutory 45-day window. They cited the binding Constitution Bench decision in Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. v. New India Assurance Company Ltd. (2020) 5 SCC 757, which expressly held that consumer fora lack power to extend the response period beyond the 15-day extension and that the limitation period commences from the date of receipt of the notice accompanied with the complaint.
The Court's Analysis
The Commission examined the statutory language of Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the authoritative pronouncement in Hilli Multipurpose (Supra). It noted paragraph 41 of that judgment, which states:
"The District Forum has no power to extend the time for filing the response to the complaint beyond the period of 15 days in addition to 30 days as is envisaged under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act; and the answer to the second question is that the commencing point of limitation of 30 days under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act 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."
The Commission emphasized that the Hilli Multipurpose decision settled that consumer fora are completely denuded of jurisdiction to enlarge time or condone delays beyond the inflexible statutory outer limit of 45 days. Applying the General Clauses Act, the Commission held that the day of service cannot be excluded; the limitation period must be computed inclusively of the receipt date. Accordingly, the 45-day window from 10.09.2024 expired on 24.10.2024, and the filing on 25.10.2024 was indeed one day beyond the limit. The Commission further observed that the District Forum’s order was strictly anchored to the Hilli Multipurpose dictum and thus suffered no illegality or impropriety.
The Verdict
The revision application was dismissed on merit. The Commission upheld the District Forum’s order dated 05.05.2025, held that the written version filed on 25.10.2024 was time-barred (filed on day 46 of a 45-day period commencing 10.09.2024), and directed the Jurisdictional District Forum to proceed with adjudication of the consumer application with utmost expedition. No costs or compensation were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Limitation Period Computation Is Strict
- The date of receipt of notice accompanied with the complaint must be included when calculating the 45-day limitation under Section 13 CPA, 1986.
- Practitioners must ensure that any written version or response is filed on or before the 45th day, counting the receipt date as day one.
No Power to Condone Delay Beyond Statutory Window
- Consumer fora lack jurisdiction to extend the response period or condone delay beyond the 15-day extension plus 30-day limit.
- Any application for condonation of delay relying on equitable considerations will be rejected if it seeks to surpass the 45-day outer limit.
Notice Receipt Date Is Integral to the Commencement Point
- The limitation period commences from the date of receipt of the notice accompanied with the complaint, not from mere receipt of the notice.
- Drafting notices and tracking receipt dates becomes critical; maintain proof of receipt (acknowledgement, delivery report) to avoid inadvertent limitation defects.
