Point of Law : Once legislature has provided for statutory appeal to a higher court, it cannot be proper exercise of jurisdiction to permit the parties to bypass statutory appeal to such higher courts and entertain petitions in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT :

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

1. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the reply, the petitioner has filed the instant petition for grant of following substantive relief:

“this petition may kindly be allowed and the delay of days in filing the reply may kindly be condoned and the written statement which has already been filed in the Hon’ble National Commission may kindly be ordered to be taken on record and matter may kindly be ordered to be heard on its merits in the interest of justice.”

2. A case came to be registered against the petitioner before the National Consumer Redressal Commission, New Delhi, (for short “National Commission”) and vide order dated 19.11.2019, the petitioner was directed to file reply. However, since the reply was not filed within the prescribed period of 45 days, the National Commission rejected the application for condonation of delay in filing of the reply, hence the petition.

3. Now, the moot question is whether the National Commission could have refused to condone the delay in filing of the reply, but more importantly is the question, as raised by the respondents, regarding maintainability of the instant petition before this Court.

4. The complaint in this case has been filed under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “Act of 1986”). Section 21 of the Act of 1986 provides for jurisdiction of National Commission, which reads as under:

“21. Jurisdiction of the National Commission Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the National Commission shall have jurisdiction:

(a) to entertain:

(i) complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds rupees [twenty lakhs].

(ii) appeals against the orders of any State Commission.

(b) to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.”

5. It is no longer res integra that the Act of 1986 is self contained and complete mechanism for redressal of the consumers related grievances by filing complaint, appeal and revision, as the case may be.

6. The Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. and Others, (2020) 5 SCC 757 has held that the Consumer Fora under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now replaced by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019) have no power to condone the delay in filing of the written statement if it is filed beyond 45 days of the date of receipt of the notice/summon as provided under Section 13(1) (a) of the said Act. However, the said decision was to operate prospectively.

7. Vide a later decision in Diamond Exports and Another vs. United Indian Insurance Company Ltd. and Others, 2002 (4) SCC 169, a Three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified the position that only in such cases, where the application for condonation of delay has been allowed on or before 4.3.2020 or an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statement has been filed on or before 4.3.2020 are to be considered and the delay can be condoned even beyond 45 days on being satisfied with the reasons given in the application.

8. Adverting to the facts of the case, it would be noticed that the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the reply has been filed only on 18.4.2022 i.e. delay in filing the written statement is 1 year and 19 days, therefore, in terms of the ratio laid down in Diamond Exports’ case supra, the National Commission has committed no error much less an illegality in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for condonation of delay.

9. A Now, adverting to the maintainability of the instant petition a