IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 12.10.2022 Date of hearing: 12.05.2023 Date of Decision: 17.10.2023 FIRST APPEAL NO. 180/2022 IN THE MATTER OF M/S RAHEJA DEVELOPERS LIMITED., W4D, 204/5, KESHAV KUNJ, WESTERN AVENUE, CARIAPPA MARG, SAINIK FARMS, NEW DELHI-110062.

(Through: Mr. Siddharth Banthia, Advocate)

...Appellant VERSUS MS. NEENA THOMAS, C-72, MAHAVIR ENCLAVE-I, PALAM DABARI ROAD, NEW DELHI.

(Through: Mr.Vivek Kumar, Advocate)

...Respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE MR. J.P. AGRAWAL, MEMBER (GENERAL) Present: Mr. Siddharth Banthia, Counsel for the Appellant.

Mr. Vivek Kumar, Counsel for the Respondent.

PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

JUDGMENT

1. The Present Appeal has been preferred by the Appellant impugning the Order dated 01.09.2022 passed by District Commission in Consumer Complaint No. 269/2021 titled ‘Neena Thomas Vs. Raheja Developers whereby the Appellant’s right to file the reply was closed on the ground that the Complaint Copy was received by the Appellant/Opposite Party on

07.02.2022 and the time to file the reply has passed.

2. The Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Appellant was not able to file the Written Statement due to unforeseen circumstances. Further, it is submitted that the office of the Appellant/Opposite Party was functioning from work from home basis from 12.04.2021 till 01.03.2022 more so, many employees of the Appellant were detected COVID Positive. Lastly, it is submitted that for mistake committed by the counsel, interest of the party cannot be affected. Pressing the aforesaid contentions, the Appellant has prayed that the Impugned Order dated 01.09.2022 be set aside. Reliance has been placed on Rafiq & Anr. Vs. Munshilal & Anr.

3. The Respondent, on the other hand, denied all the allegations of the Appellant and submitted that there is no error in the impugned order. It is further submitted that the complete set of documents along with the complaint were collected by the Appellant on 07.02.2022 more so, the vakalatnama was also filed on the same date which was admitted by the Appellant. It is therefore submitted that the Appeal is liable to be dismissed.

4. On perusal of the material on record, it is the case of the Appellant that the Appellant-company was not able to file the Reply to the Complaint before the District Commission due to unforeseen circumstances. Moreover, the office of the Appellant/Opposite Party was functioning from work from home basis from 12.04.2021 till 01.03.2022 more so, many employees of the Appellant were detected COVID Positive. Lastly, it is submitted that for mistake committed by the counsel, interest of the party cannot be affected. However, it is to be noted that the Appellant has not alleged any apparent error or material irregularity by the District Commission while passing the Impugned Order nor it is alleged that the District Commission has acted extra-judicially in contravention of the jurisdiction vested in it. A perusal of the record clearly suggests that the complaint alongwith documents were served to the Appellant on 07.02.2022. Thereafter, the Appellant failed to file the written statement within the the statutory period of 30 days and the right was closed vide order dated 01.09.2022.

5. In order to condone the delay, the Appellant has to satisfy this Commission that there was sufficient cause to file the written statement after the stipulated period. The term ‘sufficient cause’ has been explained by the Apex Court in Basawaraj and Ors. vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer reported in AIR 2014 SC 746. The relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced as under:-

“9. Sufficient cause is the cause for which Defendant could not be blamed for his absence. The meaning of the word "sufficient" is "adequate" or "enough", inasmuch as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, the word "suffici