2024 (7) TMI 1656 - HC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of composite petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - Appellate Jurisdiction - Time limitation - refusal to take on record written statement filed by the Petitioner herein on the ground that the same was filed beyond the period of limitation - HELD THAT - The present Writ Petition arises out of an Order passed in a Revision Petition and therefore in the present Writ Petition this Court is sitting as an Appellate authority over a revisional order passed by a judicial tribunal. It is also pertinent to mention that the Apex Court in Ibrat Faizan v. Omaxe Buildhome Private Limited 2022 (5) TMI 793 - SUPREME COURT after taking notice of its Judgment in Associated Cement Companies Limited v. P.N. Sharma 1964 (12) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT has observed that An authority or body deriving its power of adjudication from an agreement of the parties such as a private arbitrator or a tribunal acting under Section 10-A of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 does not satisfy the test of a tribunal within Article 136. It matters little that such a body or authority is vested with the trappings of a court. The Arbitration Act 1940 vests an arbitrator with some of the trappings of a court so also the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 vests an authority acting under Section 10-A of the Act with many of such trappings and yet such bodies and authorities are not tribunals. 45. The word tribunal finds place in Article 227 of the Constitution also and I think that there also the word has the same meaning as in Article 136. This Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is examining the present matter as an Appellate Authority and is exercising its power of superintendence. Even though the present Writ Petition is not a Writ of Certiorari it is well established that even assuming that the instant case is one under writ of certiorari then also the High Court does not sit as a Court of appeal and the Court is only concerned with the question as to whether the Tribunal has or has not acted without jurisdiction or contravened the principles of natural justice in the exercise of its jurisdiction. The Court does not substitute its decision to the one arrived at by the authorities below just because another view is possible. Unless the view taken by the forum below is perverse or arbitrary the Court does not interfere with the decision of the forum below under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The State Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction has come to the conclusion that no valid reason has been given by the Petitioner herein for condonation of delay in filing the written statement. A reading of the Section 38(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 would show that the period of filing a written statement after receiving the copy of the complaint is 30 days and the same can be extended up to fifteen days if the District Commission deems it fit to do so. In the present case the summons was issued on 17.12.2022 and it was received by the Petitioner herein on 23.12.2022 and the period of 30 days got over on 21.01.2023. The Petitioner filed its Written Statement only on 31.01.2023 and raised a plea that it has not received a complete set of documents along with the summons when in fact a complete set of documents has been served to the Petitioner along with the summons as is evident from the weight of the documents sent along with the summons and the postal charges. This Court does not find any reason to hold that the reason given by the District Commission in refusing to condone the delay in filing the written submission is erroneous - Petition dismissed.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

- Whether the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (District Commission) was justified in refusing to take on record the written statement filed by the Petitioner on the ground of delay beyond the prescribed limitation period.

- Whether the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (State Commission) erred in upholding the District Commission's order refusing condonation of delay in filing the written statement.

- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to entertain the present Writ Petition challenging the revisional order passed by the State Commission.

- Whether the Petitioner's plea that it did not receive the complete set of documents along with the summons, thereby justifying the delay in filing the written statement, is tenable.

- Whether the Whatsapp conversation produced by the Petitioner can be considered as valid evidence to establish non-receipt of complete documents.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227

The Court examined its jurisdiction to entertain the present petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. It was noted that the petition challenges a revisional order passed by the State Commission, which is a judicial tribunal vested with powers to conclusively determine rights between parties under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The Court referred to authoritative precedent which clarified that bodies empowered by statute to conclusively determine rights of parties in controversy are tribunals within the meaning of Article 227 and 136 of the Constitution. The Court observed that while the appropriate procedural course would have been to file a Civil Miscellaneous Main (CMM) Petition under Article 226, the Petitioner chose to file a composite Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227. The Court, exercising its appellate and supervisory jurisdiction, proceeded to examine the matter on merits to avoid further delay.

Justification for refusal to condone delay in filing written statement

The District Commission had refused to condone a seven-day delay in filing the written statement, holding that the Petitioner had received the complete set of complaint documents along with the summons on 23.12.2022, but filed the written statement only on 31.01.2023, beyond the prescribed 30-day period. The District Commission relied on postal receipts, weight of documents, and postal charges to conclude that the Petitioner's claim of incomplete documents was not bona fide. The Commission found that the Petitioner attempted to gain time by falsely claiming non-receipt of annexures, as evidenced by the identical weight and postage of the registered article sent to the Petitioner and the Respondent. The Court noted that the District Commission had meticulously analyzed the facts and found no satisfactory or natural course of events to justify the delay.

Petitioner's plea of non-receipt of complete documents and use of Whatsapp conversation

The Petitioner sought to demonstrate non-receipt of complete documents by producing screenshots of Whatsapp conversations with the Respondent. The Court observed that these conversations were neither produced before the State Commission nor referred to in its order. The Court held that such electronic communications cannot be treated as evidence without proper certification as mandated under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Consequently, the Court declined to rely on the Whatsapp chats to overturn the findings of the District and State Commissions.

Legal framework on limitation for filing written statement

The Court referred to Section 38(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which mandates that the opposite party must file their version of the case within 30 days of receiving the complaint copy, extendable by a further 15 days at the discretion of the District Commission. The Court noted that the summons and complaint documents were received by the Petitioner on 23.12.2022, making the last date for filing the written statement 21.01.2023. The Petitioner filed the written statement on 31.01.2023 without valid justification for delay. The Court found no error in the District Commission's refusal to condone the delay.

Scope of judicial review by the High Court

The Court emphasized that under Article 226, it does not act as a court of appeal over findings of fact by tribunals. The High Court's interference is limited to instances where the tribunal acted without jurisdiction, violated principles of natural justice, or its decision is perverse or arbitrary. Since the District Commission's order was reasoned and based on material evidence, the Court found no ground to interfere.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

"An authority other than a court may be vested by statute with judicial power in widely different circumstances... any outside authority empowered by the State to determine conclusively the rights of two or more contending parties with regard to any matter in controversy between them satisfies the test of an authority vested with the judicial powers of the State and may be regarded as a tribunal within the meaning of Article 136."

"The High Court does not sit as a Court of appeal and the Court is only concerned with the question as to whether the Tribunal has or has not acted without jurisdiction or contravened the principles of natural justice in the exercise of its jurisdiction."

"The Whatsapp conversations cannot be read as evidence without there being a proper certificate as mandated under the Evidence Act, 1872."

"The District Commission's refusal to condone delay in filing the written statement is based on a detailed analysis of postal records and material evidence, and the plea of non-receipt of complete documents is held to be not bona fide."

Core principles established include the limited scope of judicial review over consumer forums' orders, the importance of adhering to prescribed limitation periods under the Consumer Protection Act, and the inadmissibility of uncertified electronic communications as evidence in such proceedings.

Final determinations are that the District Commission's and State Commission's orders refusing condonation of delay and rejecting the Petitioner's written statement filed beyond limitation are upheld. The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition accordingly.