National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): While considering a revision petition filed against the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (State Commission), wherein application for condonation of delay for delayed filing of written statement was dismissed, the Single Member Bench of Saroj Yadav, J., (Presiding Member) allowed the petition and held that written statement was filed within the maximum permissible period of 45 days.
Background
The petitioner-HDFC Bank Ltd. Filed revision petition under Section 58(1)(b), Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (CP Act, 2019) challenging the order dated 27 May 2026 passed by State Commission whereby its application for condonation of delay in filing the written statement was dismissed and the written statement was directed to be taken off the record. The petitioner submitted that the notice of complaint was served on 22 September 2025 and the copy of the complaint was received on 24 September 2025. The written statement was filed on 6 November 2025 which was 45th day from the date of service and was within the maximum statutory period of 45 days. An application was also filed seeking condonation of delay of 15 days beyond the initial period of 30 days. The State Commission dismissed the application on the ground that written statement was filed beyond prescribed period as provided in Sections 38(2) (a) and 49(1), CP Act, 2019. It was further submitted that impugned order deprives the petitioner of an opportunity to contest the complaint on merits including objections regarding maintainability under Section 34, Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, limitation and absence of deficiency in service. Thus, the present petition was filed.
Primary questions before the Commission
Whether the State Commission was justified in holding that the written statement had been filed beyond the maximum permissible period of 45 days and consequently declining to take the same on record?
Analysis
The Commission noted that the impugned order proceeded on the assumption that the written statement was filed beyond a statutory period of 45 days. However, the material placed on record presented that the written statement was admittedly e-filed on 6 November 2025 and the total period came to 44 days from 24 September 2025, the date on which the complaint was first received by the petitioner.
The Commission reiterated the judgment of Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (P) Ltd., (2020) 5 SCC 757 (Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage case), wherein it was held that though the opposite party is ordinarily required to file its written statement within 30 days, the Consumer Commission may, for sufficient reasons, extend the time by a further period not exceeding 15 days. Hence, the maximum permissible period became 45 days.
The Commission observed that the delay beyond initial period of 30 days was only 14/15 days, depending upon the mode of computation and was well within the statutory extension contemplated in Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage case. The petitioner had also filed a separate application explaining the cause of delay, and it could not be said to be mala fide. The Commission held that the written statement was filed within the maximum permissible period of 45 days and the delay beyond 30 days was also explained, the State Commission, therefore, committed a factual error in proceeding on the premise that the filing taken place was beyond the prescribed period. The impugned order passed by the State Commission was thus set aside, and the revision petition was allowed. The application seeking condonation of delay was also allowed.
[HDFC Bank Ltd. v. Thomas Alexander, Revision Petition No. NC/RP/812/2026, dated 23-7-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner (s): Mohd. Arham and Ms. Shimpy Sharma, Advocates
For Respondent(s): Sanjiv Kumar and Sandeep Singh, Advocates