JUDGMENT

1. The Appellant has preferred the present Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to set aside the impugned order dated 12.01.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-IX (East), Convenient Shopping Centre, First Floor, Saini Enclave, Delhi-110092 in Complaint Case no. 220/2022 filed by Respondent/Complainant against the Appellant/Opposite Party. Vide impugned order dated 12.01.2023, the District Commission while deciding upon the application for condonation of delay in filing the written statement has held as follows:

“OP has filed an application seeking condonation of delay, mentioning various facts and ultimately it is stated that written statement has been filed on 57th days from the date of service. Copy given. Law is well settled.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. V/s Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt Ltd.

(2020) 5 SCC 5797 has inter alia held:

To conclude, we hold that our answer to the first question is that the District Forum has no power to extend the time for filling the response to the complaint beyond the period of 15 days In addition to 30 days as is envisaged under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act; and the answer to the second question is that the commencing point of limitation of 30 days under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act would be from the date of receipt of the notice accompanied with the complaint by the opposite party, and not mere receipt of the notice of the complaint.

Further. It was held in a case, in Diamond Export and Ors. V/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Civil Appeal No.

7546/2021 Confirm thesame and in para 15 it held:

(15) The discretion for condonation of delay under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 is specifically circumscribed by the statute. Similar statutory provisions exist in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 2015 and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 though in a different statutory context facilitating the sanctity of the arbitral process in the former and the legislative intent of ensuring timely disposal and corporate rehabilitation in the latter. The Consumer protection Act 1986 and its successor are social welfare legislations designed to protect the Interests of consumers. The Constitution Bench had thus noted:

(28)- It is true that "Justice hurried is justice buried ". But in the same breath it is also said that "Justice delayed is justice denied. The legislature has chosen the latter, and for a good reason. It goes with the objective sought to be achieved by the Consumer Protection Act, which is to provide speedy Justice to the consumer. It is not that sufficient time to file a response to the complaint has been denied to the opposite party. It is just that discretion of extension of time beyond 15 days (after the 30 days' period) has been curtailed and consequences for the same have been provided under Section 13 (2)(b)(1) of the Consumer Protection Act. It may be that in some cases the opposite party could face hardship because of such provision, yet for achieving the object of the Act, which is speedy and simple redressal of consumer disputes, hardship which may be caused to a party has to be ignored.”

Keeping in view all such, the Commission is of the view that this Commission does not have any discretion to condone the delay of more than 45 days in all and as such application of the OP seeking condonation of delay of 12 days as prayed is dismissed. The written statement therefore filed by OP would not be read for the purpose of defence of OP.

Put up for CE on 09.05.2023.”

2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Commission, the Appellant/Opposite Party has preferred the present Appeal contending that the counsel for the Appellant has received the copy of the complaint on 19.09.2022 and the written statement was filed on 16.11.2022 by the Appellant before the District Commission. The Appellant has further submitted that being the Government Nation