IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 29.11.2023 Date of Hearing: 19.12.2024 Date of Decision: 10.01.2025 APPEAL NO.-627/2023 IN THE MATTER OF UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE NO.1 18, BARAKHAMBA ROAD, 8^TH FLOOR, KANCHENJUNGA BUILDING, NEW DELHI – 110001.

(Through: Ms. Sayma Feroz, Advocate)

…Appellants VERSUS MR. NISHANT SAINI, S/O LATE MR. C.B. SAINI, R/O, 38, JANGPURA ROAD, NEW DELHI – 110014.

(Through: Mr. Jitender Saini, Advocate)

…Respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE J.P. AGRAWAL, MEMBER (GENERAL)

Present: Ms. Sayma Feroz, counsel for the Appellant, E-mail:

advsaymaferoz@gmail.com.

Mr. Jitender Saini, counsel for the Respondent.

PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT

JUDGMENT

1. The Appellant/Opposite Party has preferred the present Appeal under Section

41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for setting aside the impugned order dated 20.10.2023 passed by the District Consumer Redressal Commission – X (South-II), Udyog Sadan. C-22 & 23 Qutab Institutional Area at New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 317 of 2022, wherein the District Commission failed to take the written statement filed by the Appellant on record.

2. The counsel for the Appellant submitted that the District Commission failed to appreciate that there was no proper service of notice along copy of the complaint served on the Appellant/Insurance company as the service is required to be affected at the concerned office of the addressee but no to any other office of choice of the Complainant/Respondent. Therefore, the period of limitation for filing the written statement cannot be computed from the date of improper service. As a result, the District Commission erred in closing the right of the Appellant to file its written statement. He further submitted that the present complaint is defective as the Respondent has impleaded unnecessary parties as opposite parties, including the Managing Director cum Chairman of the United India Insurance Company against whom the Respondent has no cause of action. Pressing the aforesaid submissions, the Appellant prayed to set aside the order of the District Commission.

3. The Respondent, on the other hand, has denied all the allegation of the Appellant and that there is no error in the impugned order. Further, the Respondent contended that the Notice was duly served to the Appellant through post on the last known address but was later returned to the District Commission. The Respondent submits that the copy of the Complaint along with the notice issued by the District Commission was duly served to the Appellant at their Regional Office on 3^rd March 2023. Pressing on the aforesaid submission, the counsel for the Respondent prayed for the dismissal of the present Appeal.

4. The written arguments of the Appellant are also on record and the same has been taken into the consideration.

5. We have perused the material available on record and heard the counsels appeared on behalf of the parties.

6. The main question of consideration before us is whether the District Commission has erred in closing the Appellant’s right to file a reply.

7. To adjudicate this issue, we deem it appropriate to refer to Section 38(2)(a) r/w Section 49(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which provides as under:

“Section 38(2): Where the complaint relates to any goods, the District Commission shall, -

2(a) refer a copy of the admitted complaint, within twenty-one days from the date of its admission to the opposite party mentioned in the complaint directing him to give his version of the case within a period of thirty days or such extended period not exceeding fifteen days as may be granted by it;”

Section 49 (1): The provisions relating to complaints under sections 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39 shall, with such modifications as may be necessary, be applicable to the disposal of complaints by the State Commission.”

8. Perusal of the aforesaid statutory position reflects that th