45-Day Reply Deadline Under Consumer Protection Act Is Mandatory and Unextendable: Punjab State Consumer Commission - 2025-09-08

Punjab State Commission Upholds Mandatory 45-Day Deadline for Filing Reply in Consumer Cases

Chandigarh, September 29, 2023 – The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, has delivered a significant ruling, affirming that the statutory 45-day period for filing a written reply to a consumer complaint is absolute and cannot be extended. The Commission, led by President Justice Daya Chaudhary, dismissed revision petitions challenging a District Commission's order that struck off the defense of several medical establishments for failing to meet this deadline.

Case Background

The case originated from a consumer complaint (CC No. 159 of 2022) filed by Richa Joshi and Raman Mehal against several medical entities, including Care Diagnostic Centre and Kuber Hospital. The couple alleged medical negligence in the diagnosis of fetal abnormalities in their son, seeking compensation of ₹50 lakh.

After receiving notices, the opposite parties (petitioners) failed to file their written replies within the stipulated timeframe under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Consequently, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patiala, in an order dated February 17, 2023, struck off their right to defense, citing the expiry of the statutory 45-day period. The aggrieved medical centers and doctors then filed revision petitions before the State Commission.

Arguments from Both Sides

Petitioners' Arguments: The petitioners, represented by Advocate Munish Kapila and others, argued that the strict 45-day limit established by the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. applied only to District Commissions and not to State Commissions. They contended that Section 49 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, grants State Commissions wider powers and the flexibility to modify procedures, including extending the time for filing replies. They warned that refusing to accept their written replies would cause them irreparable loss, as the case was still in its initial stages.

Respondents' Arguments: Counsel for the complainants, Advocate Yagsimant Attri, countered that the petitioners were granted sufficient time but failed to comply with the statutory mandate. They argued that the five-judge Constitutional Bench in the Hilli Multipurpose case had decisively settled the law, establishing that no consumer forum has the jurisdiction to accept a written statement beyond the total period of 45 days (30 days plus a 15-day extension).

The Commission's Legal Analysis and Precedents

The State Commission meticulously analyzed the central legal question: whether the 45-day time limit prescribed under Section 38(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, is mandatory or directory.

The Commission traced the evolution of the law through several key Supreme Court judgments:

- J.J. Merchant & Ors. v. Shrinath Chaturvedi (2002): A three-judge bench first held that the 45-day legislative mandate must be adhered to for speedy trials.

- New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (2020): A five-judge Constitutional Bench conclusively upheld the J.J. Merchant ruling, settling the conflict in judicial opinions. The bench declared that the time limit is mandatory and Consumer Commissions lack the power to extend it.

- Kutumb Welfare Society v. NOIDA: The Commission also cited a Supreme Court order from November 4, 2022, which dismissed an SLP against a National Commission order refusing to condone a delay beyond 45 days, thereby reinforcing the Hilli Multipurpose precedent.

The judgment emphasized the legislative intent behind the Consumer Protection Act, which is to provide a "simple, inexpensive and speedy remedy." The Commission highlighted that unlike other provisions in the Act (e.g., for filing appeals or complaints), Section 38 provides no discretionary power to condone delays in filing a reply.

The Commission quoted the Supreme Court's reasoning in the Hilli Multipurpose case:

“The legislature was conscious that the complaint would result in being decided ex parte, or without the response of the opposite party, if not filed within such time as provided under the Consumer Protection Act, and in such a case, the opposite party will not be allowed to take the plea that he was not given sufficient time or that principles of natural justice were not complied with.”

The bench also distinguished the provision from Order VIII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, noting that the Consumer Protection Act explicitly provides for consequences (proceeding ex-parte) for non-compliance, making the timeline mandatory.

Final Decision and Implications

Based on the binding precedent set by the Supreme Court's Constitutional Bench, the State Commission found no merit in the petitioners' arguments. It concluded that the period for filing a written reply cannot be extended beyond the statutory 45 days.

The Commission dismissed the revision petitions filed by Care Diagnostic Centre and others, upholding the District Commission's order. This decision reaffirms the procedural strictness of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, underscoring the importance of adhering to statutory timelines to ensure the swift resolution of consumer disputes.