The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed a revision petition filed by Union Bank of India, reaffirming that the statutory time-limit for filing a written version under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is mandatory and cannot be ignored without clear discretion.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Union Bank of India, was named as proforma OP No. 1 in the original consumer complaint (Case No. CC/123/2024) filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), North 24 Parganas, Barasat. The respondents were Avijit Baisya, Manipal Cigna Health Insurance Company Ltd., Medi Assist Insurance TPA Pvt. Ltd., and Apollo Multispeciality Hospitals Ltd.
Key Facts
- 18 July 2024: Union Bank received the notice of the consumer complaint.
- 09 September 2024: The bank filed its written version, 51 days after receipt of the notice, exceeding the statutory 30-day period by 21 days.
- 03 March 2025: The DCDRC held that the written version was filed beyond the permissible period, rejected it, and proceeded ex parte against Union Bank.
- The bank contended that heavy workload and the need to coordinate with its counsel caused the delay.
- The respondents argued that the statutory period is clear and no discretion existed to condone the delay.
Procedural History
- 18 July 2024 - Notice of complaint served on Union Bank (proforma OP No. 1).
- 09 September 2024 - Written version filed by Union Bank (51 days after notice).
- 03 March 2025 - DCDRC order rejecting the written version and proceeding ex parte.
- 09 September 2024 - Union Bank filed a written version (also noted as the date of filing the revision petition in the record).
- 11 August 2026 - State Commission (SC) dismissed Revision Petition No. SC/19/RP/40/2025 and affirmed the DCDRC order.
Parties' Positions
- Petitioner (Union Bank of India): Asserted that the delay was beyond its control due to operational pressures and that the Commission erred in treating the delay as a “little delay” without considering the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
- Respondents (Avijit Baisya and insurers/hospitals): Maintained that Section 38(3)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 mandates filing the written version within 30 days of notice, with at most a discretionary extension of 15 days, and that the bank’s delay was indefensible.
Relief Sought
Union Bank sought setting aside of the DCDRC order dated 03 March 2025, restoration of its right to be heard, and cancellation of the ex parte proceedings.
The Legal Issue
Whether the District Commission acted without jurisdiction or with material irregularity in rejecting a written version filed after the statutory period prescribed under Section 38(3)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and consequently whether the revision petition should be dismissed or the impugned order set aside.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
- The bank argued that the delay was caused by unavoidable operational constraints and that the Commission should have exercised its discretion under the Act to extend the filing period.
- Cited the need to consider the spirit of consumer protection, emphasizing that procedural rigidity should not defeat substantive justice.
For the Respondent
- Emphasised the clear language of Section 38(3)(a) which allows a written version to be filed only within 30 days of notice, with a discretionary extension of up to 15 days.
- Asserted that the bank’s filing was 51 days after notice, exceeding even the maximum discretionary period, and therefore the Commission was within its jurisdiction to reject it.
- Relied on the principle that revisional jurisdiction under Section 46(1)(b) is limited to jurisdictional errors, not mere merits.
The Court's Analysis
The Commission examined the statutory framework governing the filing of a written version. Section 38(3)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 mandates that an opposite party must file a written version within thirty days of receipt of the notice. The provision further allows the District Commission, at its discretion, to extend this period by a maximum of fifteen days.
"In the instant case the written version was filed by the proforma OP No. 1 i.e. Revisionist after a period of about 51 days from the date of receipt of the notice i.e. beyond the statutory period of 30 days causing delay of about 21 days."
The Commission noted that the bank’s filing was 21 days beyond the permissible extension, leaving no room for discretionary relief. It held that the District Commission had not acted beyond its jurisdiction; rather, it correctly applied the statutory time-limit.
The analysis further referenced Section 46(1)(b), which empowers the State Commission to intervene only when a District Commission has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it, failed to exercise vested jurisdiction, or acted illegally or with material irregularity. The Commission concluded that the only issue was the timing of the written version, a matter squarely within the statutory mandate, and not a jurisdictional defect. Consequently, there was no material irregularity warranting interference.
The Court also stressed that revisional jurisdiction is not a substitute for an appeal; it is confined to jurisdictional questions. Since the District Commission’s decision was based on a clear statutory provision, the State Commission could not overturn it.
The Verdict
The revision petition (No. SC/19/RP/40/2025) was dismissed on 11 August 2026. The State Commission affirmed the DCDRC order dated 03 March 2025, upheld the ex parte proceedings, vacated the interim stay, and ordered the petition dismissed without cost.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Strict Enforcement of Section 38(3)(a)
- Practitioners must ensure that a written version is filed within the 30-day window, or at most within a discretionary 15-day extension, failing which the opposite party may be proceeded against ex parte.
- Courts are unlikely to entertain revisional challenges on the ground of procedural delay when the statutory period is clearly breached.
Limited Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction
- Under Section 46(1)(b), a revisional authority can intervene only for jurisdictional errors, not for mere merit or discretionary disagreements.
- Parties should focus on raising jurisdictional defects at the district level rather than relying on higher-level revisional relief.
Documentation and Timelines Are Critical
- Maintain meticulous records of notice receipt dates and filing timestamps.
- Where delay is unavoidable, seek an explicit extension from the District Commission before the statutory deadline expires.
- Failure to obtain such an extension will likely result in dismissal of any subsequent revision petition.
