SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

DELHI HIGH COURT
Subramonium Prasad, J.
Dell International Services
India Private Limited – Petitioner
versus
Adeel Feroze and Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C).4733 of 2024
Decided on 2.7.2024

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Pratyush Miglani and Mr. Hrithik Yadav, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINT
WhatsApp conversations cannot be read as evidence without there being proper certificate as mandated under Evidence Act, 1872.

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 38(2)(a) – Constitution of India – Articles 226 and 227 – Written statement – Limitation – District Commission refused to condone delay of seven days in filing Written Statement because of false case put up by Petitioner – Screen-shot of WhatsApp conversations cannot be taken into account by this Court while dealing with Writ Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India – In any event, WhatsApp conversations cannot be read as evidence without there being proper certificate as mandated under Evidence Act, 1872 – State Commission, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, has come to conclusion that no valid reason has been given by Petitioner for condonation of delay in filing written statement – Reason given by District Commission in refusing to condone delay in filing written submission is not erroneous. (Paras 7, 11, 12 and 14)

Result: Writ Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT

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.

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 o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top