The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed a revision petition by Interglobe Aviation Ltd., upholding the District Commission's refusal to condone a 14-day delay in filing a written statement. The Commission ruled that the extended 15-day period under Section 38(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is not a matter of right and requires the party to demonstrate sufficient cause with cogent particulars, which the airline failed to provide by merely citing internal departmental processes.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The revisionist, Interglobe Aviation Ltd. (operating as IndiGo), challenged an order dated 18.11.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (North East Delhi) in Consumer Complaint No. 146/2024. The District Commission had dismissed the revisionist's application seeking condonation of delay in filing its written statement. The underlying consumer complaint was filed by Ms. Monika Jain and Mr. Sachin Jain against Interglobe Aviation Ltd. and MakeMyTrip India Pvt. Ltd. alleging deficiency in service.
Key Facts
- The revisionist was served with a copy of the complaint along with accompanying documents on 29.05.2024
- The statutory period of 30 days for filing the written statement under Section 38(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 expired on 28.06.2024
- The extended period of 15 days (as permitted under the same provision) expired on 13.07.2024
- The revisionist filed its written statement on 12.07.2024, i.e., on the 44th day from receipt of the complaint
- The revisionist attributed the delay to time taken in obtaining and collating information from various departments of the organisation
- No particulars were furnished regarding when such information was sought, from which departments, what specific information was awaited, or when it was received
Procedural History
- 28.02.2025: Revision Petition No. 03/2025 instituted before the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
- 03.07.2026: Hearing conducted via video conference
- 03.09.2026: Judgment pronounced dismissing the revision petition
Relief Sought
The revisionist prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated 18.11.2024 and for taking the written statement on record.
The Legal Issue
Whether the District Commission was correct in dismissing the application for condonation of delay in filing the written statement where the statement was filed within the extended 15-day period but beyond the initial 30-day statutory period, and the revisionist attributed the delay to internal organisational processes without furnishing specific particulars.
Arguments Presented
For the Revisionist
Interglobe Aviation Ltd., through Mr. Rahul Garg, contended that the delay in filing the written statement was neither deliberate nor intentional. Counsel submitted that the revisionist was required to obtain and collate relevant information from various departments of the organisation, which process consumed considerable time. It was argued that the delay was occasioned due to bona fide and unavoidable circumstances and was not attributable to any deliberate or negligent conduct. The revisionist relied on the fact that the written statement was filed within the extended 15-day period contemplated under Section 38(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
For the Respondents
Ms. Monika Jain and Mr. Sachin Jain, through Ms. Priya Chaudhary and Mr. Karan, denied all contentions of the revisionist. They submitted that there was no error in the impugned order as the entire material available on record was properly scrutinised before passing the order. The respondents maintained that the revisionist failed to provide any cogent explanation for the delay.
The Court's Analysis
The Commission examined Section 38(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which mandates that the opposite party must give its version of the case within 30 days, extendable by a further period not exceeding 15 days as may be granted by the District Commission. The Commission observed that a bare perusal of the provision makes it clear that the extended period of 15 days is not available as a matter of right.
"The extended period of 15 days is not available as a matter of right and can be availed only upon the Court/Commission being satisfied that the party was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the Written Statement within the initial statutory period of 30 days."
The Commission held that it was incumbent upon the revisionist to place on record cogent and convincing reasons demonstrating that despite exercising due diligence, it was prevented from filing within the prescribed 30 days. The revisionist's application attributed the delay primarily to the time taken in obtaining and collating information from various departments. However, no particulars were furnished as to when such information was sought, from which departments, what specific information was awaited, or when it was received. No explanation was given as to why the written statement could not have been prepared and filed within the initial 30-day period.
The Commission further held that the responsibility of complying with the statutory period cannot be avoided merely by attributing delay to internal or departmental processes. Such internal administrative arrangements are matters within the control of the revisionist and cannot, in the absence of any exceptional circumstance or cogent explanation, constitute sufficient cause for extending the statutory period. The revisionist also failed to demonstrate that any circumstance beyond its control prevented it from instructing its counsel or finalising the written statement within the prescribed period.
The Verdict
The revision petition was dismissed with no order as to costs. The order dated 18.11.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (North East Delhi) in CC No. 146/2024 was upheld. The written statement filed on 12.07.2024 (44th day from service on 29.05.2024) was not taken on record. The Commission found that the revisionist failed to disclose any cogent, bona fide, or sufficient cause for the 14-day delay beyond the statutory 30-day period.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Extended Period Is Not a Matter of Right
The 15-day extension under Section 38(2)(a) CPA 2019 is discretionary, not automatic. Practitioners must treat the initial 30-day period as the firm deadline and the extension as an exceptional indulgence requiring affirmative proof of sufficient cause.
Internal Administrative Delays Do Not Constitute Sufficient Cause
Delays attributable to internal organisational processes - collating information from departments, obtaining approvals, or coordinating between units - are within the party's control and will not satisfy the sufficient cause standard unless accompanied by exceptional circumstances beyond the party's control.
Particularised Explanation Is Mandatory
A condonation application must contain specific particulars: dates when information was sought, departments approached, nature of information awaited, date of receipt, and explanation for why the written statement could not be drafted and filed within the statutory period. Generic assertions of "departmental delays" or "collation of data" will be rejected.
- File written statements within the initial 30-day period as standard practice
- If extension is needed, file the condonation application simultaneously with the written statement
- Include a detailed affidavit with chronological particulars of all steps taken and obstacles encountered
- Demonstrate that the delay was caused by factors genuinely outside the party's control
- Avoid relying solely on internal administrative processes as justification
