IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution:27.04.2024 Date of Hearing :10.03.2025 Date of Decision :09.04.2025 REVISIONPETITIONNO.15/2023 IN THE MATTER OF ICICI PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE CORPORATE OFFICE AT UNIT NO.1A & AMP. 2A, RAHEJA TIPCO PLAZA, RANI SATI MARG, MALAD (EAST), MUMBAI-400097 ….REVISIONIST (Through Mr. Praveen Mahajan, Advocate, Mob.9810620827 &

E-Mail:advocatemahajan27@gmail.com)

VERSUS MR. PRADIP KAR, R/O HOUSE NO.20, LANE NO.12, 2ND LINK ROAD, SILCHAR-788006, ASSAM, INDIA ....RESPONDENT (Through Mr.PraateekVash, Advocate Mob.9560745111 &

Email: ampersandlawoffices@gmail.com)

CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Present: Mr. Nakul Agarwal, proxy counsel for revisionist (Mob.8824712147 & Email: adv.nakulagarwal@gmail.com).

Mr. Prateek Vash, counsel for respondent.

PER: HON’BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

1. The present revision petition has been preferred by the Revisionist impugning the order dated 12.02.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VIII (Central Delhi) in Consumer Complaint No.52/2023 titled as “Pradip Kar Vs. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd., whereby the revisionist’s Written Statement was refused to be taken on record.

2. The Counsel for the Revisionist submitted that notice of the complaint was duly received by the revisionist on 02.05.2023 and on 02.06.2023 the written statement was filed with application for condonation of delay for condoning the delay of 1 day in filing the written statement from the date of receipt of notice. It is further submitted that the District Commission had wrongly not taken the written statement on hyper technical ground that the petitioner had no locus standi/authority to contest the matter as on 02.12.2023 the petitioner duly brought on record the authority letter and vakalatnama and even, on 07.02.2024, the letter of ratification was duly filed by the revisionist, ratifying the action taken by the erstwhile authorized representative Ms. Kashmira Khedekar. Pressing the aforesaid contentions, the Revisionist has prayed that the Impugned Order dated 12.02.2024 be set aside and the written statement of the Revisionist be taken on record.

3. The Respondent, on the other hand, in his reply denied all the allegations of the Appellant and submitted that there is no error in the impugned order. It is therefore submitted that the Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

4. Both the parties have also filed their written submissions.

5. We have carefully perused the material on record as well as the written submissions.

6. To deal with the present issue, we deem it appropriate to refer to Section 47 (1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 reproduced hereunder as:

“(b) to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any District Commission within the State, where it appears to the State Commission that such District Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.”

7. A perusal of the aforesaid statutory position makes it clear that the State Commission can entertain a revision petition in cases where the District Commission has acted extra-judicially or the District Commission has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Reverting to the material on record, it is the case of the Revisionist that after receiving the notice of the complaint on 02.05.2023, the written statement filed on 02.06.2023 with delay of 1 day alongwith application for condonation of delay under the signature of Ms. Karishma Khedekar duly supported by affidavit stating therein she authorised si