IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 24.09.2024 Date of Hearing: 16.01.2025 Date of Decision: 04.02.2025 FIRST APPEAL NO.-641/2024 IN THE MATTER OF MR. RAJEEV SHARMA, S/O LATE MR. B.R. SHARMA, R/O B-2/137, UGF, SAFDARJUNG ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI-110029.

(EMAIL: legalconsultants245@gmail.com)

(Through: Mr. Bharat Deepak, Advocate)

…Appellant VERSUS BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

93, ASHOK BHAWAN, 6^TH FLOOR, 608, 605, NEHRU PLACE FLYOVER, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI-110019 EMAIL: hat@bajajallianz.co.in & Health.Admin@bajajallianz.co.in)

(Through: Mr. Akshay Chowdhary, Advocate)

…Respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Present: Mr. Rajeev Sharma, counsel for the Appellant.

Mr. Akshay Chowdhary and Ms. Sonali Madaan, counsel 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 30.08.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-X (South East District), Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23 Institutional Area (Behind Qutab Hotel), New Delhi in Complaint Case No.139/2022 filed by Appellant/ Complainant against the Respondent/ Opposite Party. Vide impugned order dated 30.08.2024, the District Commission while deciding upon the application for condonation of delay in filing the written statement has held as follows:

“Complaint copy was received on behalf of OP on 18.08.2024 and thereafter on 05.09.2024 when the matter was taken up, counsel for the OP had stated that certain pages were missing from the complainant and he was directed to collect the complaint copy from the Commission. The reply was filed on 30.09.2024. Thereafter, the contention was raised by the complainant on 19.10.2023 that the reply is time barred when it had already been taken on 16.12.2022.

The matter was listed for arguments on the application for condonation of delay today. Counsel for the OP states that he is stuck before the Hon'ble High Court and can address his arguments on VC.

Though the argument that the time is time barred has been raised after 10 months from the date of the order, however, complainant states that the application for condonation of delay was pending and therefore it should be entertained. Arguments on the application are heard.

It is seen that the complaint copy received on 18.08.2024 and the reply has been filed on 30.09.2024 along with application for condonation of delay. This Commission has the discretion to condone the delay if the reply has been filed within 45 days of the receiving of the complaint, for the reasons stated therein the application for condonation of delay is allowed, written statement was rightly taken on record.

List the matter for written arguments of both the parties on

24.10.2024.”

2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Commission, the Appellant/Complainant has preferred the present Appeal contending that the counsel for the Respondent has received the copy of the complaint along with notice on 06.08.2022 and the written statement was filed on 30.09.2022 by the Respondent before the District Commission. The Appellant further submitted that the District Commission has erred in allowing 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, the counsel for the Appellant prayed for setting aside the order dated

30.08.2024, passed by the District Commission.

3. The Respondent, on the other hand, filed reply to the present Appeal wherein, it denied all the allegations of the Appellant and submitted that there is no error in the impugned order.

4. The written arguments have been filed by the Appellant wherein it relied upon the following judgments in support of its case:

a) RFA No. 303/2020 titled: Akash Pack Tech (P) Ltd. VS- M/s.

Today Tea