IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 26.06.2024 Date of Hearing: 25.03.2025 Date of Decision: 21.04.2025 FIRST APPEAL NO. 443/2024 IN THE MATTER OF M/S. JOTINDRA STEEL AND TUBES LTD., AT SARVOME HOUSE, 14/3, MATHURA ROAD, SECTOR – 45, FARIDABAD – 121 003, HARYANA, (THROUGH MR. BRIJESH KUMAR SINGH, AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE)

MR. BRIJESH KUMAR SINGH (Through Mr. Amrit Singh, Advocate)

…Appellant VERSUS MR. SANJEEV SHARMA, S/O MR. Y.D. SHARMA, R/O, D-106, DABUA COLONY, AIR FORCE ROAD, NIT, FARIDABAD, HARYANA – 121001, E-MAIL: SANJEEV80SHARMA@GMAIL.COM MOB. NO. 9582234988 …Respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Present: Mr. Amrit Singh, counsel for the Appellant.

E-mail: npsinghandassociates@gmail.com, counsel.singh@gmail.com None for the Respondent.

PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT 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 13.05.2024 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI (Distt. New Delhi), M Block, 1^st Floor, Vikas Bhawan, I.P. Estate, New Delhi 110002 in Complaint Case No. 351/2023 filed by Appellant/Opposite Party against the Respondent/Complainant. Vide impugned order dated 13.05.2024, the District Commission while deciding upon the application for condonation of delay in filing the written statement has held as follows:

“AR of complainant states that written statement has been filed beyond the statutory period. It is stated that OP-1 was served on 18.10.2023 but written statement was filed on 15.12.2023.

Heard and perused the record.

In view thereof Section 38(3)(a), written statement of OP No. 1 cannot be taken on record. Defence of OP-1 stands struck off.

To come up for filing of written statement by OP-2.”

2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Commission, the Appellant has preferred the present Appeal, contending that the District Commission erred in appreciating that the complete set of the Complaint was received by the Appellant on 16.11.2023 and that the Appellant/Opposite Party could only have filed their Written Statement after receiving the complete set of the Complaint in question. Further, the Appellant has submitted that the District Commission has failed to provide the Appellant with an opportunity to place the said letter dated 10.11.2023 on record vide which the Appellant sought the supply of copy of the complete set of the Consumer Complaint No. 351 of 2023 titled as “Sanjeev Sharma vs. Jotindra Steel & Tubes Ltd. & Anr”, which would allow the said Complaint to be decided on its merits. The Appellant further submitted that the District Commission has erred in dismissing the application for condonation of delay despite of the fact that the written statement was filed beyond the stipulated period of 45 days. Pressing the aforesaid submissions, the Appellant has prayed for setting aside the order dated 13.05.2024 passed by the District Commission.

3. The Respondent has failed to file the Reply to Appeal and the Written Arguments despite being given many opportunities and therefore, the right of the Respondent to file the Reply to Appeal and Written Arguments stands closed vide order dated 13.02.2025.

4. Written Arguments of the Appellant are on record and the same have been considered. The counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the District Commission has not appreciated Section 34(3)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, alongwith Regulation 10(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 while passing the impugned order dated 13.05.2024. The Appellant has further submitted that the Written Statement filed by the Appellant before the District Commission is within period of limitation as the said Written Statement was filed within 30 days of the receipt of the complete set of the Complaint.

5. We have perused the mat