Consumer Complainants’ Bid To Keep Builder’s Reply Out Fails: Delhi HC Says E-Filing Glitch Didn’t Undo Its Filing Within 45 Days

The petitioners challenged the NCDRC’s order setting aside the State Commission’s refusal to take Respondent No. 1’s written statement on record.

The consumer complaint notice was served on 24 September 2025.

Respondent No. 1 maintained that it electronically tendered its written statement on 4 November 2025 and submitted it again on 6 November after encountering filing difficulties.

The State Commission treated the written statement as filed on 20 February 2026 and rejected the application for condonation of delay.

On revision, the NCDRC verified the electronic filing with its IT Section, found that the written statement had been tendered within the prescribed period, and directed that it be taken on record.

The petitioners then invoked Articles 226 and 227 to challenge that order.

Section 38(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 prescribes 30 days for filing a written version, extendable by a further 15 days; the statutory period must be adhered to.

In assessing whether filing occurred within that period, a procedural or electronic-filing defect does not, by itself, negate the fact of timely tender where the filing is verified and substantial compliance is established.

The High Court’s review under Articles 226 and 227 did not warrant re-examination of the filing history absent a basis for interference with the NCDRC’s approach.

The notice was received on 24 September 2025, and the 30-day period and additional 15-day grace period expired around 8–9 November 2025.

The petitioners did not dispute that the reply was electronically tendered on 4 November; their objection concerned its filing in the wrong field and the absence of an IA number.

The NCDRC had verified the filing with its IT Section, and the High Court found no reason to disturb its conclusion that the reply was tendered within the 45-day period and that the filing difficulties did not erase the fact of timely filing.

The Court declined to re-examine those procedural matters in writ jurisdiction, noting that taking the defence on record did not determine the merits of the complaint and that further interlocutory litigation would delay its adjudication.

It clarified that its observations were limited to taking the written statement on record and expressed no view on the merits of the consumer complaint; pending applications were also disposed of.