District Commission Cannot Accept Written Version Beyond Statutory Period Of 45 Days: Tamil Nadu State Commission
The Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai, presided over by Justice R. Subbiah (President), has set aside an order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (South), which had accepted the written version of the opposite party beyond the statutory period of 45 days prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.Brief...
The Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai, presided over by Justice R. Subbiah (President), has set aside an order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (South), which had accepted the written version of the opposite party beyond the statutory period of 45 days prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Brief Facts
The Petitioner/Complainant, Dr. A. Keerthy Aberna, filed a consumer complaint before the District Commission seeking a refund of ₹25,000 allegedly unlawfully charged, ₹4,200 towards expenses, and ₹5,00,000 as compensation for deficiency in service.
Upon service of notice, the Respondent/Opposite Party, Legsgo Corporate (Legsgo Holidays), entered appearance on 17.07.2025. As per Section 38(3)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the Opposite Party was required to file its written version within a maximum period of 45 days. However, the Opposite Party filed its written version only on 03.09.2025. Despite the expiry of the statutory period, the District Commission, by order dated 03.09.2025, accepted and took the written version on record.
Aggrieved by the said order, the Complainant filed the present Revision Petition contending that acceptance of a written version beyond the statutory period was contrary to law and binding Supreme Court precedent.
Observations of the Commission
The State Commission examined Section 38(3)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which provides 30 days for filing a written version, extendable by a further period of 15 days. The Commission observed that since no power is vested in the District Commission to extend time beyond the aggregate period of 45 days, acceptance of a written version thereafter is legally unsustainable.
On verification of records, the Commission noted that the statutory period expired on 30.08.2025, and since 30.08.2025 and 31.08.2025 fell on a Saturday and Sunday, the last permissible date for filing was 01.09.2025. As the written version was filed only on 03.09.2025, it was clearly barred by limitation.
The Commission relied upon the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., (2020) 5 SCC 757, wherein it was held that the time limit for filing a written version is mandatory and cannot be extended beyond the statutory cap.
The State Commission emphasized that permitting a written version beyond the prescribed period defeats the object of the statute and that no extra-statutory permission can be granted, even in the absence of objection by the complainant.
Accordingly, the Revision Petition was allowed. The order dated 03.09.2025 passed by the District Commission, Chennai (South), was set aside. The District Commission was directed to set the Opposite Party ex parte and decide the complaint on merits based on the complainant's submissions.
Case Title: A. Keerthy Aberna v. Legsgo Corporate
Case Number: R.P. No. 46/2025
Date of Decision: 28.11.2025