IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 28.08.2023 Date of hearing: 22.09.2025 Date of Decision: 25.09.2025 FIRST APPEAL NO.-688/2024 IN THE MATTER OF ADVANCE INDIA PROJECTS LIMITED, HAVING REGITERED OFFICE AT:

AIPL BUSINESS CLUB, 5^TH FLOOR, SECTOR-62, GURUGRAM – 122002. HARYANA, (THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. ANKUSH YADAV)

(Through: KNM & Partners, Law Offices)

…Appellant VERSUS

1. MS. JAYA PANDEY, 2. MR. PRAKASH PANDEY, BOTH RESIDENT OF:

SS GROUP, THE PALLADIANS, SECTOR-47, MYFIELD GARDEN, GURUGRAM – 122018, HARYANA.

(Mr. Pradeep Mahajan &

Mr. Sudhir Mahajan , Advocate)

…Respondents CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Present: Ms. Tanvi Garg and Mrr. Akshat Jain, counsel for the appellant (Email: tgarg@knm.in)

Respondent in person.

Mr. Sudhir Mahajan, counsel for the respondent (Enrl. No. D/595/02, Email: advocatesmahajan@gmail.com)

PER : HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT

JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the Opposite Party/Appellant challenging the Order dated 07.10.2024 passed by the District Commission in Consumer Complaint No. 38/2024, titled Jaya Pandey And Anr. vs. Advance India Projects Ltd., whereby the District Commission dismissed two applications filed by the Appellant one for the interrogatories under section 38(9) and section 59(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and the other seeking dismissal of the consumer complaint.

2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the order dated 07.10.2024, whereby it held as under:

“1. Before we deal with the main complaint case, we will first deal with two applications filed on behalf of the applicant/OP - (1) under Section 38(9) read with Section 59(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, for serving interrogatories on the complainant and (2) application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for dismissal of complaint on the ground of lack of subject matter jurisdiction and territorial jurisdiction.

2. Opportunity was afforded to the complainant to file reply to the aforesaid applications. However, the complainant has chosen not to file formal reply, though the applications have been opposed by the complainant.

3. We have heard the parties and gone through the facts of the case, As regard regard the first application of the OP for interrogatories, in a recent decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has ruled that a party who has forfeited the right to file a written statement in a case is prohibited from indirectly presenting their case through evidence or written submissions. This ruling emphasizes that such a party, while still allowed to participate in the proceedings and cross-examine the complainant, cannot circumvent the forfeiture by introducing their case in any indirect manner. Their Lordships further observed that court's decision aims to uphold the procedural integrity of legal processes and ensure that forfeiture consequences are respected. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment delivered in the case titled as 'Kaushik Narsinhbhai Patel & Ors. Vs M/s. S.J.R. Prime Corporation Private Limited', decided on 22.07.2024 are reproduced below:-

"18. In the context of the aforesaid provisions under the CPC, it is apt to refer to a decision of a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Nalini Sunder v. GV Sunder. It was held therein that a party could not make out a case on the basis of evidence for which he/she has laid no foundation in the pleadings. It is fairly settled that no amount of evidence can prove a case of a party who had not set up the same in his/her pleadings, it was further held therein. According to us, it is the correct proposition of law. In the absence of any specific provisions dealing with non- filing of written statements/forfeiture of the right to file a written statement, taking note of the general position as above, it can only be held that i