The Delhi State Consumer Commission has firmly closed the door on discretionary extensions beyond the statutory 45-day window for filing written statements in consumer proceedings. This ruling reinforces the legislative intent behind strict timelines in consumer disputes, prioritizing expeditious resolution over procedural leniency - even for corporate entities facing internal administrative delays.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose when Alankit Limited, a respondent in a consumer complaint filed by Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., failed to file its written statement within the time prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The District Forum, South-II, Delhi, closed Alankit’s right to file a reply after it missed the 45-day deadline, leading to a revision petition challenging that order.
Procedural History
- 21.12.2018: Complaint copy served on Alankit Limited; direction issued to file written statement within 30 days
- 28.02.2019: District Forum dismissed request to file belated written statement, noting delay of 69 days and absence of formal application for condonation
- 01.11.2019: Revision petition filed before Delhi State Commission
- 21.01.2026: State Commission dismissed revision, upholding District Forum’s order
Relief Sought
Alankit Limited sought to set aside the District Forum’s order and be permitted to file its written statement, arguing that internal administrative delays constituted sufficient cause and that consumer fora should adopt a liberal approach to serve justice.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 13(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 permits a consumer forum to condone delay beyond 45 days for filing a written statement, even if the delay is due to internal corporate procedures and no prejudice is caused to the complainant.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Alankit Limited contended that the delay was due to internal administrative approvals within the company, not mala fide intent. It relied on New India Assurance v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. and multiple NCDRC rulings to argue that consumer fora must adopt a liberal, justice-oriented approach. It emphasized that no prejudice would arise to the complainant if the written statement were accepted, and that procedural technicalities should not defeat substantive rights.
For the Respondent
The respondent argued that Section 13(2)(a) imposes a mandatory ceiling of 45 days - 30 days plus a discretionary 15-day extension - and that no further leeway exists under the law. It cited New India Assurance to underscore that the legislature intended strict adherence to timelines to ensure speedy disposal. The absence of any formal application for condonation of delay rendered the explanation of internal delays legally insufficient.
The Court's Analysis
The Commission undertook a detailed statutory interpretation of Section 13(2)(a), which provides that the opposite party shall file a written statement within 30 days, or such extended period not exceeding 15 days as may be granted by the District Forum. The Court emphasized that the phrase "not exceeding fifteen days" is a hard cap, not a flexible guideline.
"The intention of the legislature seems to be very clear that the opposite party would get the time of 30 days, and in addition another 15 days at the discretion of the Forum to file its response. No further discretion of granting time beyond 45 days is intended under the Act."
The Court rejected the petitioner’s reliance on liberal interpretation doctrines, noting that while consumer fora are meant to be accessible, they are not exempt from statutory mandates. The explanation of "internal administrative delays" was deemed insufficient without supporting documentation or a prior application for extension. The Court held that the absence of a formal application for condonation of delay under Section 13(2)(a) rendered the belated filing procedurally invalid.
The Commission further clarified that even if the delay was unintentional, the law does not permit judicial discretion beyond the 45-day limit. The petitioner’s liberty to file written arguments was preserved, but this did not equate to an extension of the statutory filing period for the written statement.
The Verdict
The revision petition was dismissed. The Court held that Section 13(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 permits no extension beyond 45 days for filing a written statement, regardless of the reason for delay. The District Forum’s decision to close the right to file a reply was legally sound and upheld.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Deadline Is Non-Negotiable
- Practitioners must file written statements within 30 days, and any request for extension must be made before the 45-day deadline expires
- Internal corporate delays, even if systemic, do not constitute sufficient cause under the Act
- No written statement filed after day 45 will be accepted, irrespective of the forum’s perceived fairness
Formal Application Required for Extension
- An application for condonation of delay under Section 13(2)(a) must be filed before the expiry of the 30-day period, not after
- Oral submissions or post-facto justifications are legally ineffective
- Practitioners should treat the 45-day window as an absolute cutoff, not a target
Written Arguments Cannot Substitute Written Statement
- While the Court permitted filing of written arguments, this does not replace the statutory requirement of a written statement
- Written arguments are for rebuttal or summation; they do not constitute a defense on merits
- Failure to file a written statement may result in ex parte proceedings, with no recourse after the deadline
