IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution:04.09.2025 Date of Hearing :24.09.2025 Date of Decision :26.09.2025 REVISION PETITION NO. 49/2025 IN THE MATTER OF OLA ELECTRONIC STORE SHOWROOM BHAJAN PURA DELHI COMPANY, MAIN BRANCH ….REVISIONIST (Through ACM Legal Advocates, Tel.:011-22755091/93, 9650536787 &

E-Mail: mail@acmlegal.org)

VERSUS MR. RAJESH KUMAR S/O MR. KAMAL KISHORE, R/O H.NO. 40, S.T. NO.2 MANGAT MARG, JAGDAMBA, COLONY, JOHARI PUR, North-East DELHI-110094 MOB.9540626064 ....RESPONDENT CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Present: Mr. Prashant Kumar Mishra, counsel for the revisionist.

(Mob.8299184369)

Respondent in person. (Mob.9540626064 & Email:

rohitsagarsoftware@gmail.com)

PER: HON’BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

1. The present revision petition has been preferred by the Revisionist impugning the order dated 01.09.2025 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (North-East), Nand Nagri, Delhi in Consumer Complaint No.35/2025 titled “Rajesh Kumar Vs. OLA Electronic Store’, whereby written statement of the revisionist/ Opposite Party was not taken on record as filed beyond the statutory period.

2. Order dated 01.09.2025 has been reproduced as under for reference:

“01.09.2025 Present : Complainant in person Ms. Vidushi Gupta, Proxy for Counsel for OP Affidavit regarding notice served to OP filed by the complainant. As per affidavit notice served to OP on 28.05.25. vakalatnama and written statement filed by the OP without application for delay. Since 45 days already left. The same cannot be taken on record. Matter be listed for filing evidence on behalf of the complainant on 13.11.25.”

3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Commission, the revisionist has approached this Commission contending that the impugned order erroneously records service as effected on 28.05.2025, whereas, the revisionist received notice at its headquarters only on 28.06.2025. It is further submitted that upon receipt of the notice, the revisionist has engaged counsel who prepared the written statement and filed the same on 29.08.2025 with delay of 16 days beyond the statutory period of 45 days due to need to procure records from Bangalore and obtain instructions. Pressing these contentions, the Revisionist has prayed that the impugned order dated 01.09.2025 be set aside and the written statement of the Revisionist be taken on record.

4. The Respondent, on the other hand, has denied all the allegations of the revisionist and submitted that there is no error in the impugned order. It is therefore submitted that the Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

5. The only question for consideration before us is whether the District Commission was right in not taken on record the 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 complaint relates to any goods, the District Commission shall,-

(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;”

7. A perusal of the above statutory provision reflects that the written statement is to be filed by the revisionist/opposite party within thirty days or such extended period not exceeding fifteen days as may be granted by the Consumer Commission. Thus, for getting the benefit of extended 15 days period, an application for extension of 15 days period has to be filed before the District Commission. However, in the present case, from the record we find that no such application for extension of time in filing the written statement has been filed by the revisionist /opposite party before the District Co