Whatsapp conversations cannot be read as evidence without there being a proper certificate as mandated under the Evidence Act, 1872, rules Delhi High Court
Justice Subramonium Prasad [02-07-2024]

Read Order: DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. ADEEL FEROZE & ORS [DEL HC - W.P.(C) 4733/2024]

LE Correspondent

New Delhi, July 5, 2024: The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Dell International Services India Private Limited challenging the orders of the Delhi State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission and the Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, where the District Commission had refused to condone a seven-day delay by Dell in filing its written statement in a consumer complaint case.

The High Court refused to consider WhatsApp conversations between the parties, noting that they were not produced before the State Commission and lacked proper certification under the Evidence Act, 1872.

The case arose from a consumer complaint filed by Adeel Feroze against Dell in September 2022. Dell received the summons and complaint documents on December 23, 2022, but only filed its written statement on January 31, 2023, beyond the statutory 30-day period under Section 38(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Dell claimed it had not received the complete set of documents with the summons, but the District Commission found this plea to be not bona fide based on the weight and postal charges of the documents sent.

Dell challenged the District Commission's refusal to condone the delay before the State Commission, which found no material irregularity in the order. Dell then approached the High Court through a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The Petitioner filed a screenshot of the Whatsapp conversation between the Petitioner and the Respondent No.1 herein to demonstrate that the entire copy of the complaint along with all the annexures was not received by the Petitioner on 23.12.2022 and it was only handed-over to the counsel for the Petitioner before the District Commission only on 31.01.2023.

Justice Subramonium Prasad noted that the High Court was exercising appellate jurisdiction over the revisional order of the State Commission, which is a judicial tribunal. The court cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Ibrat Faizan v. Omaxe Buildhome Private Limited (2022), which relied on Associated Cement Companies Limited v. P.N. Sharma (1965), to observe that an authority vested with the power to conclusively determine rights of contending parties is a tribunal under Article 136 and 227 of the Constitution.

The High Court held that it does not sit as a court of appeal in writ proceedings and only examines if the tribunal acted without jurisdiction or violated principles of natural justice. The court refused to consider WhatsApp conversations between the parties, noting that:

“The screen shot of whatsapp conversations cannot be taken into account by this Court while dealing with a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, more so, when there is nothing to show that the conversations were produced before the State Commission as this Court does not find any reference of the same in the present Writ Petition.”

It further said that “there is no discussion of the same in the Order of the State Commission. In any event, the Whatsapp conversations cannot be read as evidence without there being a proper certificate as mandated under the Evidence Act, 1872”.

Finding no reason to interfere with the reasoned order of the District Commission, which was upheld by the State Commission, the High Court dismissed Dell's writ petition.