SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

Page 1 Wednesday, March 19, 2025

Printed For: aadesh jain, Manipal University
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2024 SCC OnLine Del 4576 : (2024) 3 CCC 32

In the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

(BEFORE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.)

In the Matter Of:

Dell International Services India Private Limited …
Petitioner;
Versus
Adeel Feroze and Others … Respondents.
W.P.(C) 4733/2024
Decided on July 2, 2024
Advocate who appeared in this case :
Mr. Pratyush Miglani and Mr. Hrithik Yadav, Advocates.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.:— Petitioner has approached this Court
under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the
Order dated 12.12.2023, passed by the Delhi State Consumer Dispute
Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State
Commission’) in Revision Petition No. 51/2023 by which the State
Commission has upheld the Order dated 04.07.2023, passed by the
Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as
‘the District Commission’) in Complaint Case No. 113/2022, which was
filed by the Respondent No. 1 herein against the Petitioner herein. Vide
Order dated 04.07.2023, the District Commission has refused to take
on record the written statement filed by the Petitioner herein on the
ground that the same was filed beyond the period of limitation.
2. Considering the fact that the Consumer Forums are Tribunals
which are vested with the powers to determine conclusively the rights
of two or more contending parties with regard to any matter in
controversy between them and being a purely judicial Tribunal and the
matter arising out of revisional jurisdiction of the State Consumer
Redressal Commission which would attract the power of
superintendence under Article 227, this Court gave a suggestion to the
learned Counsel for the Petitioner that it would be appropriate for the
Petitioner to file a Civil Miscellaneous Main (CMM) Petition, which is the
appropriate course while approaching this Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. However, the learned Counsel for the
Petitioner declined the suggestion of this Court and contended that
since the present Writ Petition is a composite petition under Article 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India, the same is maintainable.
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 2 Wednesday, March 19, 2025
Printed For: aadesh jain, Manipal University
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. At this juncture, it is pertinent to mention that under Article 226

of the Constitution of India this Court holds Original Jurisdiction and
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India this Court holds Appellate
Jurisdiction.
4. 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 SCC OnLine SC
620, after taking notice of its Judgment in Associated Cement
Companies Limited v. P.N. Sharma, AIR 1965 SC 1595, has observed
as under:
“44. An authority other than a court may be vested by statute
with judicial power in widely different circumstances, which it would
be impossible and indeed inadvisable to attempt to define
exhaustively. The proper thing is to examine each case as it arises,
and to ascertain whether the powers vested in the authority can be
truly described as judicial functions or judicial powers of the State.
For the purpose of this case, it is sufficient to say that 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. Such a power of
adjudication implies that the authority must act judicially and must
determine the dispute by ascertainment of the relevant facts on the
materials before it and by application of the relevant law to those
facts. This test of a tribunal is not meant to be exhaustive, and it
may be that other bodies not satisfying this test are also tribunals.
In order to be a tribunal, it is essential that the power of adjudication
must be derived from a statute or a statutory rule. 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.”
5. Instead of filing the present Petition as a CMM, the Petitioner has
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 3 Wednesday, March 19, 2025
Printed For: aadesh jain, Manipal University
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

chosen to file the present Writ Petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India for the reason that an LPA would not be
maintainable against an Order passed by this Court in CMM. In order to
avoid further delay, this Court, in the present Writ Petition, has also
examined the case on merits as well.
6. The facts of the case reveal that Respondent No. 1 herein filed a
Consumer Complaint Case No. 113/2022 against the Petitioner herein
before the District Commission on 19.09.2022. On 16.11.2022
summons was issued by the District Commission in the said complaint
case. Admittedly, the summons was received by the Petitioner on
23.12.2022. It is stated that the documents received by the Petitioner
on 23.12.2022 were incomplete. On the basis of the documents
received by the Petitioner herein, a written statement was filed by the
Petitioner on 31.01.2023. Though the Written Statement was objected
to by the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1 herein before the
District Commission as it was filed beyond the time prescribed,
however, the same was taken on record. It is also stated that the
complete set of documents was also handed over by the Counsel for the
Respondent No. 1 herein to the Counsel for the Petitioner before the
District Commission. On 18.04.2023, a rejoinder to the written
statement was filed by the Petitioner herein and on 16.05.2023 an
application for condonation of delay of seven days in filing the written
statement was filed by the Petitioner herein before the District
Commission. The District Commission dismissed the application of the
Petitioner herein by observing as under:
“3.2. The OP1/applicant is taking paradoxical plea and in the
application it is contended in case there is delay it may be condoned
but in the written arguments a different contention is taken that
period is to be computed from 31.01.2023 when complete copy was
provided. There is a further request that there is delay of 7 day and
it may be condoned if the services is to be assumed from
23.12.2022. However, the record speaks the things differently.
When refused registered article containing notice to OP2 was
received back in the Commission, it was opened and it was handed
over to the counsel for OPs. It was a complete set without any
deficiency. The registered article sent to OP1 was in the same state
of affairs of postal charges and weight. Moreover, the applicants/OP2
enquired about the deficiency of record then it is explained that copy
of complaint was received and no other document. Whereas, the
total documents are 1-113, out of them complaint pages are from
page-1-15 and remaining papers are annexures (page-16-113), it
would not be possible that for the same weight of article the
complaint was just sent to the OP1. It infers and proved the OP was
served with the complete record, otherwise the OPs would have
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 4 Wednesday, March 19, 2025
Printed For: aadesh jain, Manipal University
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

mentioned on whatsapp in annexures were not received. Neither in

the annexures nor in the application it is mentioned about receipt of
complaint papers only or the number of papers. Therefore, the plea
of OP1 is not bona-fide, it had received the complete set but in order
to gain the time the whatsapp message was sent, which was
protested by the complainant also by response to it and also in order
to justify the delay the application was filed. Since, there is no
satisfactory and natural course of event plea, application in respect
of OP1 is dismissed.”
7. The District Commission refused to condone the delay of seven
days in filing the Written Statement because of the false case put up by
the Petitioner herein. The Petitioner herein thereafter challenged the
Order passed by the District Commission by filing a Revision Petition
under Section 47B of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, before the
State Commission. The State Commission vide its Order dated
12.12.2023 found that there was no material irregularity in the Order
dated 04.07.2023 and refused to exercise its revisional jurisdiction. It
is this Order which has been challenged by the Petitioner in the present
Writ Petition.
8. The Petitioner has filed a screenshot of conversation between the
Petitioner and the Respondent No. 1 herein to demonstrate that the
entire copy of the complaint along with all the annexures was not
received by the Petitioner on 23.12.2022 and it was only handed-over
to the counsel for the Petitioner before the District Commission only on
31.01.2023. The Whatsapp chats are reproduced herein and the same
reads as under:
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 5 Wednesday, March 19, 2025
Printed For: aadesh jain, Manipal University
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 6 Wednesday, March 19, 2025
Printed For: aadesh jain, Manipal University
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 7 Wednesday, March 19, 2025
Printed For: aadesh jain, Manipal University
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. The District Commission examined the matter in great detail. It

called for postal receipts of the documents which were sent along with
the summons and were received by the Petitioner on 23.12.2022. The
District Commission analysed the weight of the documents sent along
with the summons and the postal charges and came to the conclusion
that complete set of documents was sent along with the summons and
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 8 Wednesday, March 19, 2025
Printed For: aadesh jain, Manipal University
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the same was received by the Petitioner on 23.12.2022. The District

Commission, therefore, held that the application of the Petitioner herein
for condonation of delay of seven days in filing the Written Statement is
not bona fide.
10. 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.
11. The screen shot of whatsapp conversations cannot be taken into
account by this Court while dealing with a Writ Petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, more so, when there is nothing to
show that the conversations were produced before the State
Commission as this Court does not find any reference of the same in
the present Writ Petition. Further, there is no discussion of the same in
the Order of the State Commission. In any event, the Whatsapp
conversations cannot be read as evidence without there being a proper
certificate as mandated under the Evidence Act, 1872.
12. 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. At this juncture, it is pertinent to reproduce Section 38(2)
(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and the same reads as under:
“38. Procedure on admission of complaint.—
****
(2) Where the complaint relates to any goods, the District
Commission shall,—
(a) refer a copy of the admitted complaint, within twenty-one
days from the date of its admission to the opposite party
mentioned in the complaint directing him to give his version of
the case within a period of thirty days or such extended period not
exceeding fifteen days as may be granted by it;……”
13. A reading of the abovementioned Section 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
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 9 Wednesday, March 19, 2025
Printed For: aadesh jain, Manipal University
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
14. In view of the above, 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.
15. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed along with the
pending applications, if any.
———
Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/
regulation/ circular/ notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be
liable in any manner by reason of any mistake or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice
rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All
disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The authenticity of
this text must be verified from the original source.