The statutory time limit of 45 days (30 days plus a maximum 15-day extension) for filing a written statement under the Consumer Protection Act is mandatory and cannot be extended by the Commission.

ORDER

(Per: Ms. Kumkum Rani, President):

This revision petition under Section 47(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has been directed against the impugned order dated 06.12.2025 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haridwar (hereinafter to be referred as “The District Commission”) in consumer complaint bearing No. DC/50/CC/167/2025, styled as Sh. Amit Kumar Singh Vs. Managing Director, TVS Motor Company Ltd. and another, whereby the opportunity of filing written statement by the revisionist, who was impleaded as opposite party No. 1 to the consumer complaint filed before the District Commission, was closed, holding that from the date of service of notice of the consumer complaint upon the revisionist, more than 45 days’ has expired, but the written statement has not yet been filed by the revisionist, hence no further time can be granted to the revisionist for filing the written statement. As a consequence thereof, the application (Paper No. 15) moved by the revisionist was rejected by the District Commission and the opposite party No. 2 – Gagan TVS, who was also impleaded as opposite party No. 2 to the consumer complaint filed before the District Commission, was directed to file written statement within a period of 45 days’, fixing 10.02.2026 for written statement of opposite party No. 2 / hearing.

Heard Sh. Devesh Uniyal, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as opposite party No. 1 / complainant – Sh. Amit Kumar Singh in person, at admission stage and perused record. Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel no need to issue notice to the opposite party No. 2 to the instant revision petition. It would not be out of place to mention here that the opposite party No. 2 has been impleaded by the revisionist as proforma opposite party. Even otherwise, no prejudice shall be caused to opposite party No. 2, in case the revision petition is decided without hearing the opposite party No. 2, for the simple reason that the impugned order has not been passed against it.

Facts relevant for the disposal of the present revision petition are that the consumer complaint in question was filed before the District Commission by opposite party No. 1 / complainant under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, wherein notice was issued to the opposite parties to the consumer complaint. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the District Commission has observed that the revisionist had put in appearance before the District Commission on 18.10.2025 through counsel, who had submitted Vakalatnama on the said date, but no written statement has been filed by the revisionist till date. The District Commission has further observed that more than 45 days’ have expired from the date of service of notice upon the revisionist, hence no further time can be granted to the revisionist for the said purpose.

The consumer complaint was filed before the District Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short “the Act”). The provision for filing written statement by the opposite party to the consumer complaint, is envisaged in Section 38(3)(a) of the Act, which reads as under:

“(a) refer a copy of such complaint to the opposite party 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 the District Commission.”

Accordingly, as per the above-quoted provision, it is crystal clear that the limitation period of 30 days’ for filing the written statement by the opposite party to the consumer complaint, has been provided under the Act and the said period can not be extended beyond a period of 15 days’, as may be granted by the District Commission.

No argument has been advanced by learned counsel for the revisionist that limitation period of 45 days’ for filing the written statement was available to the revisionist on the date of