IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 09.12.2022 Date of Hearing: 12.05.2023 Date of Decision: 10.10.2023 FIRST APPEAL NO.- 252/2022 IN THE MATTER OF CITIBANK N.A., THROUGH AUTHORISED SIGNATORY:

MR. JAGDISH SALWAN REGISTERED OFFICE AT:

FIRST INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE, 14^TH FLOOR, PLOT NOS. C-54 & C-55, G- BLOCK, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI-400098.

ALSO AT:

CITIBANK N.A., DLF CAPITAL POINT, GROUND FLOOR, BABA KHARAK SINGH MARG, NEW DELHI-110001.

(Through: Suri & Co., Law Firm)

…Appellant VERSUS MS. SHUBHRA CHATURVEDI, D/O HAMIR CHATURVEDI, RESIDENCE AT:

FLAT NO. 1-3, FARM VIEW APARTMENT, 40, SATBARI CHATTARPUR, NEW DELHI-110074.

…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. Ajay Kumar Tyagi & Mr. Naveen Sirohi, counsel for the Appellant.

Mr. Deepam Rangwani and Ms. Tanvi Pandey, 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 seeking setting aside of the impugned order dated 28.10.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission II, South Delhi, New Delhi in Complaint Case no. 71/2022 which was filed by Respondent/ Complainant against the Appellant/ Opposite Party. Vide impugned order dated 28.10.2022, the District Commission closed the right of the Appellant to file written statement and Evidence by way of affidavit and has held the following:

“Evidence has been filed on behalf of the complainant though counsel for OP has also filed evidence, which is not taken on record as OP's right to file reply was closed vide order dated 26.08.2022.

Counsel for OP has moved an application for condonation of delay as well as seeking review of the order dated 26.08.2022.

Arguments on the applications are heard.

On perusal of the record available before us, it is noticed that on

04.07.2022 counsel for OP submitted that they had received soft copy of the complaint on 28.06.2022. It is stated that OP had supplied copy of the reply to the complainant on 10.08.2022, however, the written statement was filed in this Commission on 17.08.2022, which was beyond the stipulated period, therefore right of OP to file reply was closed.

This Commission does not find sufficient/cogent reasons to condone the delay and does not find any error apparent on record.

Accordingly, applications are dismissed. reasons List on 31.01.2023 for written submissions.”

2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Commission, the Appellant/Opposite Party has preferred the present Appeal contending that the counsel for the Appellant has received the copy of the complaint on 28.06.2022 and the written statement has been filed before the District Commission on 12.08.2022. However, the District Commission inadvertently noted the date of filing the written statement as 17.08.2023 instead of 12.08.2022. The Appellant lastly submitted that the District Commission has erred in appreciating the fact that the written statement has been filed by the Appellant within the stipulated period of 45 days. Pressing the aforesaid submission, the counsel appeared on behalf of the Appellant prayed for the setting aside of order dated 28.10.2022.

3. The Respondent, on the other hand, failed to file the reply to the present Appeal till date.

4. We have perused the material available on record and heard the counsel appeared on behalf of the parties.

5. The only question for consideration before us is whether the District Commission was right in closing the right of the Appellant to file the written statement and evidence by dismissing the application for condonation of delay in filing the written statement.

6. To resolve this issue, we deem it appropriate to refer to the Section 38(2)(a)

of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which provides as under:

“Section 38(2): Where the complai