ORDER : (PER Hon’ble Shri Justice Valmiki Menezes )

1. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

2. This is a Revision Petition impugning an order dated 10.04.2026, by which the District Commission, North has allowed an application filed by the Complainant to discard/reject taking on record a written version of the Opposite Party. The Petitioner is the Opposite Party before the District Commission.

3. Following are the facts that give rise to this Revision Petition.

a) The Complaint was initially rejected by the District Commission, which was ultimately, on an appeal filed before the State Commission, which remanded it back before the District Commission for allowing the Opposite Party to file its written version. The written version was to be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 13(2) (a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by 16.10.2025 (within 30 days as prescribed); on 17.10.2025 when the matter was heard by the Commission, on an oral request by the Opposite Party the matter was adjourned to 05/11/2025, on the assumption that the Opposite Party would file its written version within the extended 15 days provided by Section 13 (2)(a) of the Act.

b) Instead of filing written version within the stipulated 15 days, the written version came to be filed 4 days later on 05.11.2025, that too without any application for condonation of delay. Written version was filed on 17.11.2025 and marked as Exhibit – 5.

c) After the Complainant and the Opposite Party filed their Affidavit-in-Evidence, the complainant filed an application seeking directions from the Commission to discard the written version, on the premise that the Commission had no jurisdiction to take on record the written version beyond 45 days, as mandated by Section 13(2)(a) of the Act.

4. The point for determination before us is whether the Commission was vested with the jurisdiction to grant extension of time to file the written version beyond 45 days, in the facts and circumstances of the case.

5. The larger bench of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Limited v/s Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited reported in ( 2020) 5 SCC 757, has considered the power of the Commission to condone delay in filing a written version beyond 45 days, permitted by section 13 of the Act. Since there were conflicting views taken by various benches of the Supreme Court on whether the Commission posed powers in condoning delay in taking on record a written version, and whether the Provision of Section (2) clause (a) of Section 13 is mandatory or directory; in view of the conflict of views taken by various decisions the matter was referred by the Supreme Court to the larger bench which ultimately took a view in New India Assurance Company Limited (supra), holding that the provisions of Section 13 (2) (a) are mandatory, and akin to the provision of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The larger bench held that just as in case of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 after the period of 45 days, the Commission had no powers to further extend the limitation. After considering the scheme of the Consumer Protection Act, Supreme Court held the same to be a beneficial legislation in favour of the consumers, and the provisions of Section 13 have been enacted to curtail the timeline taken in the litigation; it has held thus:

"28. It is true that "justice hurried is justice buried". But in the same breath it is also said that "justice delayed is justice denied". The legislature has chosen the latter, and for a good reason. It goes with the objective sought to be achieved by the Consumer Protection Act, which is to provide speedy justice to the consumer. It is not that sufficient time to file a response to the complaint has been denied to the opposite party. It is just that discretion of extension of time beyond 15 days (after the 30 days' period) has been curtailed and consequences for the same have been provided under Sectio