WhatsApp Screenshots Inadmissible Without Evidence Act Certificate: Delhi High Court Rules in Consumer Dispute Case

Case Overview

Case Name: Dell International Services India Private Limited Vs Adeel Feroze & Ors.
Court: Delhi High Court
**Writ Petition No.😗* W.P.(C) 4733/2024
Date of Order: 02/07/2024

The Delhi High Court, in this matter, upheld the concurrent findings of both the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, dismissing the writ petition filed by Dell International Services India Private Limited. The core controversy revolved around the rejection of the petitioner's application seeking condonation of delay in filing its written statement before the District Commission in Consumer Complaint Case No. 113/2022.

Background and Factual Matrix

Respondent No. 1 instituted Consumer Complaint Case No. 113/2022 before the District Commission on 19.09.2022 against the petitioner. Summons were issued on 16.11.2022, and the petitioner acknowledged receipt of the same on 23.12.2022. The petitioner's position was that the documents accompanying the summons were incomplete, and therefore the written statement was filed only on 31.01.2023.

The prescribed statutory period for filing a written statement expired on 21.01.2023 — thirty days from the date of receipt of summons. The petitioner, recognising the delay, filed an application on 16.05.2023 seeking condonation of what it termed a seven-day delay. However, the petitioner's approach before the District Commission was internally inconsistent: in the condonation application it sought pardon for the delay, while in its written arguments it contended that the limitation period should be computed from 31.01.2023, the date on which the complete set of documents was allegedly provided.

District Commission's Findings

The District Commission conducted a detailed factual inquiry into the petitioner's claim that it had received an incomplete set of documents. The Commission called for postal receipts relating to the documents dispatched along with the summons. Upon examining the weight of the postal article and the corresponding postal charges, the Commission concluded that a complete set of documents had indeed been delivered to the petitioner on 23.12.2022.

The District Commission extracted the following reasoning in its order:

"3.2. The OP1/applicant is taking paradoxical plea and in the application it is contended in case there is delay it may be condoned but in the written arguments a different contention is taken that period is to be computed from 31.01.2023 when complete copy was provided. There is a further request that there is delay of 7 day and it may be condoned if the service is to be assumed from 23.12.2022. However, the record speaks the things differently. When refused registered article containing notice to OP2 was received back in the Commission, it was opened and it was handed over to the counsel for OPs. It was a complete set without any deficiency. The registered article sent to OP1 was record then it is explained that copy of complaint was received and no other document. Whereas, the total documents are 1-113, out of them complaint pages are from page-1-15 and remaining papers are annexures (page-16 – 113), it would not be possible that for the same weight of article the complaint was just sent to the OP1. It infers and proved the OP was served with the complete record, otherwise the OPs would have mentioned on whatsapp in annexures were not received. Neither in the annexures nor in the application it is mentioned about receipt of complaint papers only or the number of papers. Therefore, the plea of OP1 is not bona-fide, it had received the complete set but in order to gain the time the whatsapp message was sent, which was protested by the complainant also by response to it and also in order to justify the delay the application was filed. Since, there is no satisfactory and natural course of event plea, application in respect of OP1 is dismissed."