High Court Dismisses Challenge to Rejected Consumer Complaint Response.
02 July 2024
Consumer Protection Act >> Consumer Rights
A recent writ petition filed before the High Court challenged the rejection of a written statement in a consumer complaint. The petitioner argued that the delay in filing was due to incomplete documents received with the summons. However, the court ultimately dismissed the petition.
Background:
The petitioner had received a consumer complaint against them. They claimed to have only received a partial set of documents with the summons, leading to a delay in filing their written statement. The District Commission (DC) rejected their request to condone the delay, believing they had received a complete set of documents. The State Consumer Redressal Commission (SCRC) upheld the DC's decision in their revisional jurisdiction.
Writ Petition and Court's Approach:
Dissatisfied with the SCRC's order, the petitioner filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. While acknowledging the petition's composite nature, the court examined it on its merits to avoid further delay. The court clarified its role under these Articles: ensuring proper functioning of tribunals (superintendence) and reviewing their decisions (appellate authority). However, the court emphasized its limited intervention, only acting when lower authorities' decisions were demonstrably unfair or arbitrary.
Key Considerations and Reasoning:
The court found the petitioner's evidence of incomplete initial documents, presented as a Whatsapp conversation, inadmissible in a writ petition. Additionally, an analysis of the postal weight and charges associated with the summons shipment suggested the petitioner received all documents. In the absence of compelling evidence to justify the delay, the court found no reason to doubt the DC and SCRC's conclusions. The court ultimately dismissed the writ petition, upholding the lower authorities' decisions.