IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution :01.11.2019 Date of Reserving the Order :07.01.2026 Date of Decision :21.01.2026 REVISION PETITION NO. 91/2019 IN THE MATTER OF BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

BAJAJ ALLIANZ HOUSE, GE PLAZA, AIRPORT ROAD, YERAWADA, PUNE, MAHARASHTRA-411006 ….REVISIONIST (Through Mr. Shighra Kumar, Advocate)

VERSUS ALANKIT LIMITED, R/O 2-5-208, ANARKALI COMPLEX, JHANDEWALAN EXTNSION, NEW DELHI-110055 ....RESPONDENT (Through Mr. Vaibhav Sethi, Ms. Priya Pathania, Ms. Roma Bedi, Mr. Mohit Garg and Mr. Anant Khajuria, Advocates Mob: 9953637304 &

Email: sandplawoffices@gmail.com)

CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Present: None for the revisionist.

Mr. Devbrat Das, counsel for the respondent.

(Mob.9557105077)

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

1. The present revision petition has been preferred by the Revisionist impugning the order dated 28.02.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (South-II), Delhi in Consumer Complaint No.242/2018 titled “Alankit Ltd. vs. Bajaj Allianz General Ins. Co. Ltd.’, whereby the right of the Revisionist to file written statement was closed on the ground that the reply was not filed within the statutory period.

2. It is noted that on the front page of the Revision Petition the date of the impugned order is mentioned as 03.04.2019, however, no order dated 03.04.2019 has been placed on record, nor is any such order shown to be under challenge.

3. Order dated 28.02.2019 has been reproduced as under for reference:

“28.02.2019 Pr. Ld. Counsel for the complainant along with AR.

Mr. Dipesh Makan, PC for the OP.

Reply not file by the OP.

It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the OP that due to some personal difficulty the reply could not be filed. The reply has tobe filed within 45 days maximum. OP has not done so. The right of OP to file reply stands closed.

Put up for Ex-Parte evidence as well as written arguments for

14/05/2019.”

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Forum, the Revisionist has approached this Commission stating that the learned District Forum passed the impugned order by adopting a hyper-technical view and wrongly closed the right of the Revisionist to file the Written Statement. It is submitted that the Revisionist had been regularly appearing before the Forum and the delay in filing the written statement occurred due to internal administrative and managerial approvals required within the company. The Revisionist had shown the valid and reasonable reasons for the delay, which were not properly considered by the District Forum. It is further submitted that it is well settled by several judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the NCDRC that consumer fora should adopt a liberal approach in matters of limitation where sufficient cause is shown and that Written Statements filed beyond the prescribed period may be accepted in appropriate cases to serve the ends of justice. The delay was neither intentional nor deliberate. If the impugned order is not set aside, the Revisionist will suffer irreparable loss, whereas no prejudice would be caused to the Respondent if the Written Statement is taken on record. Pressing these contentions, the Revisionist has prayed that the impugned order dated 28.02.2019 be set aside and the revisionist be permitted to file its written statement.

5. The Respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 clearly provides a maximum period of 45 days for filing a Written Statement, which is mandatory. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that this time limit cannot be extended and must be strictly followed to ensure speedy disposal of consumer cases. In view of settled law and the facts of the case, the District Forum has rightly closed the right of the Opposite Party to file the Written Statement, and no interference by the State Commission is warranted.

6. To deal with the pr