IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 12.12.2024 Date of Hearing: 09.01.2026 Date of Decision: 02.02.2026 FIRST APPEAL NO.- 803/2024 IN THE MATTER OF

1. DR. RUCHI, DOCTOR OF SKINN ‘O’ HAIR, AESTHETIC CLINIC & ACADEMY.

2. SKINN ‘O’ HAIR AESTHETIC CLINIC & ACADEMY, THROUGH ITS PARTNER, BOTH HAVING ITS OFFICE AT:-

F-22, BASEMENT GEETANJALI ENCLAVE, NEAR AUROBINDO COLLEGE, MALVIYA NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110017.

(Through: Ms. Srishti Sharma & Associates)

…Appellants VERSUS MRS. PUSHPA, W/O SH. SURENDER SINGH, R/O H.NO. 102/29, STREET NO. 1, LAXMAN VIHAR, PHASE – 2, GURUGRAM, HARYANA.

(Through: Mr. S. S. Panwar & Associates)

…Respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MS. BIMLA KUMARI, MEMBER (FEMALE)

Present: Appellant in Person.

Mr. Shashwat Rajpurohit, Counsel for the Respondent.

PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT JUDGMENT

1. The Appellant has preferred the present Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to set aside the impugned order dated 06.11.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, South Delhi in Complaint Case no. 125/2024 filed by Respondent/Complainant against the Appellants/Opposite Parties. Vide impugned order dated 06.11.2024, the District Commission has closed the right of the Appellants/Opposite Parties to file written statement in the following terms:

“Complaint copy was collected on 04.09.2024 and the reply is being filed today which is beyond 45 days. Right of OP-1 and OP-2 file reply is closed. Submissions made by the OP-1 and OP-2 are heard.

Counsel for complainant to seek expert opinion for the facial condition of the complainant within 15 to 20 days from a government hospital. G.B pant with prior information to the counsel for OP.

List on 08.01.2025."

2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Commission, the Appellants/Opposite Parties has preferred the present Appeal submitting that the Appellants have received the notice of the complaint along with the copy of the complaint on 04.09.2024 and filed the written statement on 06.11.2024. The Appellants further contended that the delay in filing the written statement occurred due to renovation work being carried out at the chamber of the engaged counsel, during which the Appellants case file was misplaced, resulting in the written statement not being filed within the prescribed period. Pressing the same, counsel for the Appellants submitted that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate and, on this ground, prayed that the impugned order passed by the District Commission be set aside.

3. The Respondent, on the other hand, filed reply to the present appeal wherein, she denied all the allegations of the Appellant and submitted that there is no error in the impugned order as the copy of the complaint was duly served with the copy of complaint along with notice on 04.09.2024, however, the Appellants failed to file the written statement within the stipulated period and also failed to give any reasonable justification for the delay caused in filing the written statement before the District Commission.

4. The written submissions have been filed by the Appellants and the Respondent and the same has been considered by this Commission at the stage of Final Arguments.

5. We have perused the material available on record.

6. The only question for consideration before us is whether the District Commission was right in closing the right of the Appellants/Opposite Parties to file the written statement.

7. 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