The maximum permissible period for filing a Written Statement in consumer disputes is 45 days (30 days plus a 15-day extension), and official electronic filing records (e-Jagriti portal) serve as conclusive evidence of the filing date.

ORDER

1. The present Revision Petition has been filed by Petitioner HDFC Bank under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, challenging the order dated 27.05.2026 passed by the Ld. State Commission in IA No. 2554/2025 in CC No. 95/2025, whereby its application for condonation of delay in filing the Written Statement was dismissed and the Written Statement was directed to be taken off the record.

2. It is the case of the Petitioner that the notice of the complaint was served on 22.09.2025, and the copy of the complaint received on 24.09.2025. The Written Statement was e-filed on 06.11.2025, being the 45th day from the date of service and within the maximum statutory period of 45 days, as recognized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and a copy thereof was also served upon the Complainants’ counsel through email on the same day. The Petitioner also filed IA No. 2554/2025 seeking condonation of the delay of 15 days beyond the initial period of 30 days. However, by the impugned order dated 27.05.2026, the Ld. State Commission dismissed the application on the premise that the Written Statement had been filed on 07.11.2025 beyond the prescribed period, without noticing that the Written Statement had in fact been e-filed on 06.11.2025, i.e., within the outer limit of 45 days.

3. The Petitioner contends that the impugned order is contrary to the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (P) Ltd., (2020) 5 SCC 757”, which recognizes that while the initial period for filing the Written Statement is 30 days, it may be extended by a further period not exceeding 15 days, making the maximum permissible period 45 days. It is further contended that the Ld. State Commission adopted a hyper-technical approach in refusing to take the Written Statement on record, despite its filing within the outer statutory limit and despite sufficient cause having been shown. Reliance placed by the Ld. State Commission on “ Basawaraj and Ors. v. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer , AIR 2014 SC 746” and “ Lingeswaran Etc. v. Thirunagalingam , SLP (C) Nos. 2054-2055 of 2022” is misplaced, as the Petitioner had adequately explained that the delay occurred due to procurement of documents from another branch, shortage of staff during the festival season and consequential difficulty in scanning and filing the documents.

4. The Petitioner further submits that the Complainants suffered no prejudice as the Written Statement had been served upon them within the statutory period of 45 days; That the impugned order deprives the Petitioner of an opportunity to contest the complaint on merits, despite its substantial defenses, including objections regarding maintainability under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act , limitation and absence of deficiency in service. It is contended that the Ld. State Commission failed to consider these jurisdictional and legal objections while deciding the application for condonation of delay, thereby violating the principles of natural justice, particularly the principle of audi alteram partem. It is also submitted that the matter had already progressed before the Registrar, who had directed filing of evidence and written submissions, and striking off the Written Statement at that stage renders the proceedings one-sided. On these grounds, the Petitioner has prayed fo