STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTAR PRADESH REVISION PETITION NO. SC/9/RP/92/2025 (Against the Order dated 19th September 2025 in Appeal DC/173/CC/2/2021 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Pilibhit)

WITH SC/9/IA/1251/2025 (STAY)

MS CHAUDHARY AGRICULTURE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED Through its Prop.gaurav Chaudhary PRESENT ADDRESS - IN FRONT OF RAMA PLEASE , PILIBHIT , BY PASS ROAD , PILIBHIT,UTTAR PRADESH.

.......Petitioner(s)

Versus BALVEER SINGH PRESENT ADDRESS - MATHNA JAPTI , PILIBHIT , TAHSIL KALINAGAR,PARGANA , PILIBHIT,UTTAR PRADESH.

MS CHAUDHARY AGRO Through its PROPRIETOR BUSINESS ADDRESS - CHHATRI CHAURAHA PILIBHIT , PILIBHIT,UTTAR PRADESH.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA , PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. SUDHA UPADHYAY , MEMBER FOR THE PETITIONER:

MS CHAUDHARY AGRICULTURE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED Through its Prop.gaurav Chaudhary FOR THE RESPONDENT:

BALVEER SINGHMS CHAUDHARY AGRO Through its PROPRIETOR DATED: 18/11/2025

ORDER

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

REVISION PETITION NO. 92 OF 2025 M/s Chaudhary Agriculture Services Private Limited…. …..Revisionist Versus Balveer Singh & Another.…… …....Opposite Parties BEFORE:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava, President.

Hon’ble Smt. Sudha Upadhyay, Member.

Sri Umesh Kumar Srivastava, Advocate for the revisionist.

None for the opposite parties.

Dated : 18.11.2025

ORDER

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, PRESIDENT

1. By means of the instant revision, a challenge has been made to the order dated

06-10-2025 passed by the learned District Commission, Pilibhit in complaint case no. 02/2021 whereby the learned District Commission has rejected the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statement beyond the prescribed statutory period.

2. We have heard submissions of the learned counsel for the revisionist Sri Umesh Kumar Srivastava.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and upon perusal of record, the instant revision is proposed to be decided finally, therefore, in view of the order proposed to be passed today, notice to the opposite party is hereby dispensed with.

4. It transpires from perusal of record that the notice was served upon the revisionist on 28-01-2025 but the written statement has been filed by the revisionist on 25-06-2025 i.e. after a delay of 150 days from service of notice.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the order dated 06-

10-2025 passed by learned District Commission in complaint case no.02/2021 be set aside and opportunity of filing written statement may be granted to the revisionist.

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 (Su