Digital Evidence Dilemma: Delhi High Court's Ruling on WhatsApp in Consumer Dispute.
In a recent judicial development in the case of Dell International Services India Private Limited v/s Adeel Feroze & Others, the Delhi High Court rendered a significant decision concerning the jurisdictional scope and procedural adherence of consumer dispute resolution forums. The case, brought under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, involved a challenge to an order passed by the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (State Commission), which upheld a decision by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (District Commission).
The dispute originated from a consumer complaint filed by Respondent No.1 against the Petitioner, who sought redressal for alleged grievances under Complaint Case No.113/2022. Central to the petitioner’s grievance was the District Commission’s refusal to admit their written statement, citing tardiness beyond the statutory limitation period.
The legal framework underpinning the case highlighted the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which mandates specific timelines for procedural steps in consumer disputes. The District Commission’s decision was based on its finding that the petitioner received the complete set of documents alongside the summons but still filed their written statement after the stipulated deadline. This led the District Commission to deny the petitioner’s application for condonation of the delay.
Subsequently, the petitioner appealed to the State Commission, invoking its revisional jurisdiction under Section 47B of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The State Commission, after reviewing the facts and arguments, upheld the District Commission’s decision, finding no material irregularity.
Aggrieved by the State Commission’s order, the petitioner approached the Delhi High Court, arguing that the decisions of both lower tribunals violated their rights under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court, in its appellate capacity under Article 227, meticulously examined the procedural history and legal arguments presented.
In its deliberation, the High Court referenced established legal principles governing the jurisdiction of consumer forums as judicial tribunals empowered to definitively settle disputes between parties. It underscored the Supreme Court’s precedent in Ibrat Faizan v. Omaxe Buildhome Private Limited, which affirmed that bodies empowered by the state to adjudicate disputes qualify as tribunals under constitutional provisions.
During the proceedings, the petitioner attempted to introduce WhatsApp conversations as evidence to substantiate their claim of incomplete document receipt. However, the High Court ruled these communications inadmissible under the Evidence Act, noting their lack of certification and absence from the State Commission’s record.
Ultimately, the Delhi High Court declined to intervene in the decisions of the lower tribunals, asserting that it does not substitute its judgment unless the actions of the tribunals below are deemed arbitrary or perverse. The court emphasized the limited scope of review under constitutional writ jurisdiction, particularly in matters where procedural timelines and factual determinations by lower forums are at issue.
Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petition under Articles 226 and 227, along with any pending applications before it. This decision underscores the imperative for litigants to adhere to procedural norms in consumer dispute resolution forums and highlights the stringent standards of judicial review applicable in such cases.
In conclusion, the case serves as a noteworthy precedent emphasizing the meticulous adherence to procedural timelines and the circumscribed role of higher courts in reviewing decisions of specialized tribunals like consumer forums.