ORDER

The appeal is listed for final hearing. No one appears for the respondents despite service. We do not see any good reason to delay the hearing any further and deem it appropriate to decide the matter on its merits. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record.

2. The case was filed as a revision petition under section 21(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against interlocutory Orders dated 18.01.2018 and dated 29.01.2019 of the State Commission in complaint no. 2070 of 2017. In the hearing before a co-ordinate bench of this Commission on 20.05.2019 the matter was ordered to be treated as an appeal under section 19 of the Act 1986. On the statement made by the learned counsel for the appellant the challenge to the Order dated 18.01.2018 was dropped and the appeal was confined to the Order dated 29.01.2019 alone.

This Commission’s Order of 20.05.2019 is reproduced below for reference:

20.05.2019

Order

In the present Revision Petition, which has been filed by the Petitioner, Office Report has been put up that the Revision Petition is not maintainable and only an Appeal lies. The objection taken by the office appears to be genuine. The office is directed to register it as an Appeal.

In the present Appeal, the Appellant has challenged two orders dated 18.1.2018 and 29.1.2019 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”), whereby in the first order, the Complaint has been admitted and notice has been issued whereas in the second order, the right to file the Written Version has been closed, as the same was not filed within the maximum statutory period of 45 days of the service of the notice.

Mr. Shubhankar Sengupta, learned Counsel for the Appellant stated that the present Appeal be confined to the order dated 29.1.2019, as the Appellant shall raise the issue regarding admissibility of the Complaint before the State Commission itself. The statement is recorded and the present Appeal is confined to the order dated 29.1.2019 passed by the State Commission. The submission is that the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.10941-10942 of 2013 – New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. – decided on 4.12.2015, does not relate to the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and it relates to some other statutory provisions. According to the learned Counsel for the Appellant, the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2990/2017 (D.No.2365/2017) - Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. vs. M/s Mampee Timbers & Hardwares Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. –decided on 10.2.2017, shall apply in the present case.

Be that as it may, I am of the considered view that the matter requires consideration. Issue notice returnable for 4th September 2019. Dasti also permitted.

Appellant shall remit directly to Respondent No.1 a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards travel and allied expenses within two weeks.

Further proceedings before the State Commission in CC/2070/2017 shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute the afore-said position, he also informs that the above Order has not been put to review or challenge.

5. Vide the impugned Order of 29.01.2019 the right of the opposite party no. 2 before the State Commission i.e. the appellant herein to file its written version was forfeited. The said Order is reproduced below for reference:

29.01.2019

Written statement is filed by OP-1 alongwith the application for condonation of delay as per which there is a delay of 05 days in filing the written statement.

However, complainant states that there is a delay of about 15 days in filing the same.

OP-1 states that due to bonafide mistake wrong calculation is made and admits that there is a delay of 15 days.

After some arguments, delay application is not opposed excepts for costs.

With the consent of counsel for complainant, del