IMPORTANT POINT
Written statement of OP which has been filed beyond statutory period, cannot be taken on record.

ORDER (ORAL)

This Second Appeal No.38 of 2025 challenges the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (‘the State Commission’) dated 29.11.2024. Vide this order, the learned State Commission dismissed First Appeal No.273 of 2024 and affirmed the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VI (Distt. New Delhi), New Delhi(‘the District Commission’) dated 14.3.2024 in CC No.12/2024 whereby the District Forum the defence of the Appellant/OP stood struck off.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, the learned District Commission had issued notice of the complaint to the Appellant/Opposite Party (OP) vide order dated 11.1.2024. As per records a copy of the same was received by the Appellant/OP on 15.1.2024. It is the contention of the OP that the written version was filed on behalf of the Appellant/OP on 14.3.2024 before the learned District Commission. The learned District Forum vide order dated 14.3.2024, closed the right to file Reply of the Appellant/OP with the following observations:—

“14.03.2024 CC/12/2024

Pr. Counsel for Complainant, Ms. Saloni.

Proxy counsel for OP, Ms.Rashi Arora.

Written statement filed, copy supplied.

Counsel for complainant states that copy of complaint and documents were supplied to counsel for OP on 15.01.2024 as such the written statement of OP which has been filed beyond the statutory period, cannot be taken on record. In view of the submission made and in view of section 38(3)(a) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the defence of Op stand struck off.

To come up for filing CE and brief synopsis by parties on 06.05.2024.”

3. Being aggrieved the Appellant/OP filed FA No.273 of 2024 against the order dated 14.3.2024 passed by the District Forum, and the State Commission vide order dated 29.11.2024 dismissed the said FA and affirmed the District Forum order with the following observations:—

“9. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that on 15.01.2024 when the appearance was put on behalf of the appellant/opposite party, copy of complaint along with documents was supplied to them to file written statement. It is submitted that the District Commission without considering the fact that the respondent/complainant approached to the appellant to settle the matter amicably on 29.2.2024, closed the right of the Appellant to file the written statement being beyond the limitation period.

10. In their evidence, the Appellant has filed copy of visitor register filed along with the appeal at page No.217 showing the visit of the respondent on 29.02.2024 at the office of the appellant and at page No.218, copy of request letter dated 05.03.2024 for waiver of interest and equalization charges served by the respondent/complainant.

11. In our view, the Appellant was required to file the written statement within 30 days from the date of receipt of the complaint i.e. 15.01.2024, which would expire on 14.02.2024 and further extended period i.e. 15 days which is discretion of the Commission which was to be end on 29.02.2024. The written statement was filed on 15.03.2024 which is beyond the statutory period.

12. It is clear from the documents filed by the appellant in support of their arguments that if, the respondent had approached them to settle the matter on 29.02.2024, the statutory period on that day had already elapsed to file written statement. Therefore, at this stage, it is not considered the submission of the appellant that the appellant had approached them to settle the matter that’s why they not filed the reply within the statutory period as the statutory period had already elapsed.

13. As regard the limitation is concerned, this is question of law that can be considered at the time of final disposal of the complaint. The appellant has liberty to argue their case before the District Commission as well as to file their written arguments on record before the District Commission.

14. Consequently, we uphold the order dated 14.03.2024 passed by the District Consumer Dispute