Canara Bank's Writ Petition Dismissed for Delayed Filing Under Consumer Protection Act, 2019
Introduction
In a significant judgment that reinforces the strict timelines prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the Telangana High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Canara Bank challenging the forfeiture of its right to file a Written Version in a consumer complaint. The Division Bench of Hon'ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Hon'ble Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar, in its order dated December 10, 2025, in W.P. No. 32889 of 2025 (The Branch Manager, Canara Bank and Another vs. Srivini Anand Bhaskar Naidu and Another) , held that the 45-day statutory limit under Section 38(3)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, is mandatory and cannot be extended under any circumstances.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from a consumer complaint (C.C. No. 110 of 2025) filed by the respondent No. 1, a retired Army veteran and senior citizen, before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I at Hyderabad. The complaint pertained to an incident that occurred on May 2, 2024, for which the complainant had also lodged an FIR and approached the Reserve Bank of India Ombudsman.
The chronology of events is crucial to understanding the case:
-
May 2, 2024: The incident forming the basis of the complaint took place.
-
May 8, 2025: The complainant filed C.C. No. 110 of 2025 before the District Commission.
-
May 23, 2025: Notice of the complaint was served on the petitioners (Canara Bank).
-
June 16, 2025: First hearing date – the petitioners failed to appear.
-
June 21, 2025: The initial 30-day period for filing the Written Version expired.
-
June 23, 2025: The matter was posted again; the petitioners still failed to appear. The District Commission extended the period by another 15 days.
-
July 7, 2025: The 45th day – the petitioners again failed to appear. The District Commission passed a docket order forfeiting the petitioners' right to file the Written Version.
-
August 19, 2025: The petitioners filed I.A. No. 236 of 2025 seeking to set aside the docket order, along with their Written Version (filed on the 87th day).
-
September 8, 2025: The District Commission dismissed the I.A., holding it had no power to accept the Written Version beyond 45 days.
-
October 13, 2025: The petitioners filed Revision Petition No. 60 of 2025 before the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
-
October 23, 2025: The State Commission dismissed the revision petition.
-
October 28, 2025: The petitioners filed the present writ petition before the Telangana High Court.
The Core Legal Issue
The primary question before the High Court was whether the District Consumer Commission has the power or jurisdiction to accept a Written Version (the equivalent of a written statement) filed beyond the statutory period of 45 days (30 days + up to 15 days) as prescribed under Section 38(3)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Statutory Framework: Section 38 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019
The Court extensively analyzed the relevant provisions of the 2019 Act:
Section 38(3)(a): Requires the District Commission, on admitting a complaint, to refer a copy of the complaint to the opposite party, directing it to give its version of the case "within thirty days or such extended period, not exceeding fifteen days, as may be granted by the District Commission."
Section 38(3)(b): Provides that if the opposite party fails to represent its case within the time given, the District Commission shall proceed to settle the consumer dispute:
-
Under clause (i): On the basis of evidence from both parties if the opposite party denies the allegations.
-
Under clause (ii): Ex parte on the basis of the complainant's evidence alone if the opposite party fails to take action within the prescribed time.
Section 38(5): Stipulates that no proceedings complying with the procedure laid down shall be called in question in any court on the ground of breach of the principles of natural justice.
Section 38(7): Mandates that every complaint shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible, with an endeavor to decide the complaint within three months (or five months if testing is required). The proviso prohibits adjournments unless sufficient cause is shown and recorded in writing.
The Landmark Precedent: New India Assurance vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage
The High Court heavily relied on the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited, (2020) 5 SCC 757. In that case, the Supreme Court had authoritatively settled the position under Section 13(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (which is pari materia with Section 38(3)(a) of the 2019 Act), holding that:
-
The time limit of 30 days + 15 days for filing a response is mandatory, not directory.
-
The District Forum has no power to extend the time beyond 45 days.
-
The commencing point of limitation is from the date of receipt of the notice accompanied by a copy of the complaint, not mere receipt of a bare notice.
-
The provision for ex-parte proceedings under Section 13(2)(b)(ii) reinforces the legislative intent of speedy disposal.
-
Section 13(3) clarifies that following this procedure does not violate principles of natural justice.
The Supreme Court had also given the judgment prospective effect, meaning it would apply to complaints filed after March 4, 2020.
Key Findings and Reasoning of the Telangana High Court
1. The 45-Day Limit is Absolute and Mandatory
The Court held that Section 38(3)(a) of the 2019 Act replicates Section 13(2)(a) of the 1986 Act, and the Constitution Bench decision in Hilli Cold Storage applies with full force. The discretion given to the District Commission to extend time is limited to the additional 15 days beyond the initial 30 days. Once the 45-day outer limit is crossed, the Commission is functus officio and cannot accept the Written Version.
2. Legislative Intent Favors Speedy Disposal
The Court emphasized the object of the Consumer Protection Act, which is to provide simple, inexpensive, and speedy redressal to consumers. Referring to Section 38(7) and its provisos, the Court noted that the Act mandates expeditious disposal and discourages adjournments. Allowing extensions beyond 45 days would defeat this very purpose.
3. Consequences of Non-Compliance are Explicitly Provided
Unlike the Code of Civil Procedure (where Order VIII Rule 10 gives courts discretion to pass any order), the 2019 Act explicitly provides the consequence of non-filing: the complaint shall proceed ex parte against the opposite party under Section 38(3)(b)(ii). This clear statutory consequence makes the time limit mandatory.
4. Natural Justice Cannot Be Pleaded
Relying on Section 38(5), the Court held that once the District Commission complies with the procedure under Section 38(2) and (3), the proceedings cannot be challenged on the ground of violation of natural justice. The opposite party was given ample opportunity – the initial 30 days, an additional 15 days, and multiple hearing dates – but failed to avail them.
5. The Writ Petition Was Not Maintainable
The Court also dismissed the petition on the ground of maintainability for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari. Relying on settled law including T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa (1954) and Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque (1954), the Court held that a writ of certiorari lies only when:
-
The inferior tribunal acts without or in excess of jurisdiction.
-
There is an error of law apparent on the face of the record.
-
Principles of natural justice are violated.
In this case, the State Commission had acted within its undoubted jurisdiction. The petitioners were essentially seeking a review of findings of fact, which is not permissible in certiorari jurisdiction.
6. Distinction from Precedents Cited by Petitioners
The petitioners relied on several decisions, but the Court distinguished each:
-
Diamond Exports v. United India Insurance (2022): This case was decided before Hilli Cold Storage and involved delays condoned prior to the prospective effect of the Constitution Bench judgment.
-
Ricardo Constructions v. Ravi Kuckian (2024): In that case, the opposite party had not received the complaint at all, so the 45-day period could not be computed. Here, notice was served on May 23, 2025.
-
Vodafone Idea Ltd. v. Suraj Maity: This involved extraordinary circumstances (R.G. Kar Hospital incident in Kolkata) where the Bar Association had requested courts not to pass adverse orders.
-
T.K. Elevator India Pvt. Ltd. v. NEO Convent School: In that case, the Written Version was filed on the 42nd day (within the 45-day limit), whereas here it was filed on the 87th day.
-
Kaushik Narsinhbhai Patel v. M/s. S.J.R. Prime Corporation: This case dealt with the right to participate in proceedings even without a written statement, not with the acceptance of a belated written statement.
7. Sympathy Lies with the Consumer, Not the Bank
The Court noted with disapproval that the petitioners attempted to invoke sympathy by presenting themselves as an "Army veteran being unfairly deprived of a valuable right." In reality, the complainant (respondent No. 1) was the retired Army veteran and senior citizen. The petitioners, a nationalized bank, had "idled and took their time" despite ample opportunities. The Court observed:
"The sympathy of the Court is with the Complainant/Respondent No. 1 who is a retired Senior Citizen. The Court takes note of the attempt to divert the Court's sympathy on an erroneous factual premise."
Analysis and Implications of the Judgment
This judgment has far-reaching implications for consumer dispute resolution in India:
1. For Opposite Parties (Banks, Corporations, Service Providers)
The judgment sends a clear message: diligence is non-negotiable. Opposite parties must treat consumer complaints with urgency. Upon receiving notice along with a copy of the complaint, they have a maximum of 45 days to file a comprehensive Written Version. Failure to do so will result in forfeiture of that right, and the complaint will proceed ex parte. Mere filing of a condonation of delay application will not revive the right, as the Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction to accept a belated Written Version.
2. For Consumers (Complainants)
This is a significant victory for consumers. It prevents deep-pocketed opposite parties from using delaying tactics to drag out proceedings. Consumers can now expect faster disposal of their complaints, as the initial stage of filing the Written Version cannot be extended indefinitely.
3. For Consumer Fora (District, State, and National Commissions)
The judgment provides clear guidance to all Consumer Fora. They must strictly enforce the 45-day limit and cannot exercise discretion to accept Written Versions filed beyond this period. If no Written Version is filed within the stipulated time, they must proceed ex parte under Section 38(3)(b)(ii). Any order accepting a belated Written Version would be without jurisdiction.
4. For Writ Courts
The judgment reiterates the limited scope of certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226. High Courts will not interfere with orders of statutory tribunals merely because another view is possible, or because the petitioner claims hardship. Unless there is a jurisdictional error or violation of natural justice, writ petitions against orders of Consumer Fora are unlikely to succeed.
5. Harmonizing with the Commercial Courts Act
The Court drew a parallel with the strict timelines under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, where the time for filing a written statement is also mandatory. This indicates a broader legislative trend towards time-bound resolution of commercial and consumer disputes.
Conclusion
The Telangana High Court's judgment in Canara Bank v. Srivini Anand Bhaskar Naidu is a landmark affirmation of the strict timelines under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. By dismissing the bank's writ petition and upholding the forfeiture of its right to file a Written Version, the Court has reinforced the constitutional mandate of providing speedy justice to consumers.
The judgment serves as a wake-up call for all opposite parties in consumer disputes: the 45-day limit is not a mere formality but a statutory command that must be obeyed. Any laxity or delay will result in serious consequences, including ex parte proceedings.
For consumers, particularly vulnerable groups like senior citizens and veterans, the judgment offers hope that their grievances will be resolved quickly without being caught in the labyrinth of procedural delays. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, with its strict timelines, is finally being given its full effect by the judiciary.
As the Court aptly observed, the sympathy of the law lies with the consumer who has approached the Forum seeking redressal, not with the opposite party that has failed to adhere to the statutory timeline despite multiple opportunities. The message is clear: justice delayed is justice denied, and the Consumer Protection Act will not allow justice to be denied.
