STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTAR PRADESH REVISION PETITION NO. SC/9/RP/53/2024 Sarvesh Kumar Patel PRESENT ADDRESS - HN 20, OOJHI KHARAGPUR, SENPUR, FATEHPUR, UP ,UTTAR PRADESH.

.......Petitioner(s)

Versus Manager V.C. Motors PRESENT ADDRESS - KORAI, DISTT FATEHPUR ,UTTAR PRADESH.

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO THROUGH MANAGER PRESENT ADDRESS - MANGALAM GUEST HOUSE, FATEHPUR, UP ,UTTAR PRADESH.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA , PRESIDENT FOR THE PETITIONER:

Sarvesh Kumar Patel FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Manager V.C. Motors DATED: 22/08/2025

ORDER

ORAL STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW.

REVISION PETITION NO. 53 OF 2024 Sarvesh Kumar Patel, Son of Sri Ramswaroop.… …..Revisionist Versus Manager, V.C. Motors & Anr.… ….Opposite Parties Dated : 22-08-2025

ORDER

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, PRESIDENT

1. Called out.

2. The instant revision petition has been filed to assail the impugned order dated 14-05-2024 passed by Learned District Consumer Commission, Fatehpur in Complaint Case No.50/2023; Sarvesh Kumar Patel Vs Manager, V.C. Motors & Another.

3. Heard Sri Abhishek Tiwari, learned Counsel for the revisionist who has appeared virtually and Sri Prasoon Kumar Rai, learned Counsel for the opposite party no.2.

4. The only short question for the resolution of instant revision is that whether the written statement filed by the present opposite party no.2 before the learned District Consumer Commission, that too beyond prescribed statutory limit could have been admitted without assigning any reason and more particularly for the reason that the written statement has already been filed, -2-

though beyond prescribed period, therefore, the same could be admitted?

5. Though, learned Counsel for the opposite party no.2 contends that it is always preferable that party should be afforded to list opportunity to bring on record their respective pleadings, so that they may adduce evidence in the light thereof. However, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the revisionist that admitting written statement file beyond the statutory period as prescribed under Section 38 (3) (a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, hereinafter referred to as ‘The Act, 2019’ is impermissible in law.

6. Finding it relevant, we deem it appropriate to extract certain observations made by Hon’ble Apex Court in New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (2020) 5 SCC 757:-

"Subsequently, a co-ordinate bench of this Court, noticed a conflict of opinion(s) in inter alia New India Assurance 1 (Supra) ; J.J. Merchant (Supra); Kailash (Supra); Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344; and Topline Shoes Limited v. Corporation Bank, (2002) 6 SCC 33, and accordingly, referred the matter to Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders. In this context, vide an order dated 30.10.2017, the instant appeal came to be placed before a Constitution Bench of this Court, with a view to bring a sense of finality vis-à-vis the underlying legal question vis-à-vis the manner of operation of Section 13 of the Act (the “Constitution Bench”). Pertinently, the Constitution Bench vide its decision in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (P) Ltd., (2020) 5 SCC 757 (hereinafter “New India Assurance 2”) categorically observed that the rigours of Section 13 of the Act needed to be complied with mandatorily; however, on account of various conflicting decision(s) of this Court, the Constitution Bench clarified that New India Assurance 2 (Supra) would operate prospectively. "

7. Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in para-3 and 4 of the New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd (supra) has held as under:-

"3. Turning to the issue at hand, the undisputed fact(s) of the present lis reveal that the Impugned Order was passed by the NCDRC on 22.08.2013 i.e., prior to 04.03.2020 - the date of pronouncement of t