IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution:29.08.2023 Date of Hearing :07.01.2025 Date of Decision :08.01.2025 REVISION PETITION NO. 60/2023 IN THE MATTER OF DR. REKHA W/O MR. MAHESH CHANDER, E-664/18, EAST GOKAL PURI, MEET NAGAR, JYOTI NAGAR, NORTH EAST, DELHI-110094 ….REVISIONIST (Through Mr. Abadh Kishor Singh, Advocate, Mob.9650389012 &

E-Mail: kishorabadh@rediffmail.com)

VERSUS MR. ARJUN SINGH, H/O LATE MS. SANDHYA, 883, GALI NO.16, A-BLOCK, PRATAP NAGAR, SABOLI, DELHI.

....RESPONDENT (Through Mr. Mohd. Kamil Khan, Advocate)

CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Present: Mr. Avadh Kishore Singh, counsel for revisionist.

Mr. Tauhid Kamil (Mob. 8076148900 &

Email: kmohd.kamil@yahoo.in), counsel for respondent.

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

1. The present revision petition has been preferred by the Revisionist impugning the order dated 11.07.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (North-East) in Consumer Complaint No. 58/2023 titled Mr. Arjun Singh vs. Dr. Rekha & Ors., wherein the written statement of the revisionist/

Opposite Party No.1 was not taken on record as filed beyond the statutory period.

2. Order dated 11.07.2023 has been reproduced as under for reference:

“Counsel for OP 1 has filed written statement. The perusal of the file shows that copy was supplied to the OP 1 on 24.05.23 and thus it is clear that written statement has filed beyond the statutory period. Hence, the same cannot be taken on record. Matter be listed for filing the evidence on behalf of the complainant on 04.09.23.”

3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Commission, the Revisionist has approached this Commission contending that copy of the complaint was supplied on 24.05.2023 but due to financial problem, the revisionist has not arranged counsel on time.

4. The Respondent has filed the reply to the present revision petition and submitted that the revisionist was served with notice alongwith copy of complaint on 12.04.2023 but counsel of the revisionist appeared before the District Commission on 24.05.2023 and filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the revisionist and sought copy of complaint as copy of complaint not received to them. It is therefore submitted that the Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. To deal with the present issue, we deem it appropriate to refer to Section 47 (1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 reproduced hereunder as:

“(b) to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any District Commission within the State, where it appears to the State Commission that such District Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.”

6. A perusal of the aforesaid statutory position makes it clear that the State Commission can entertain a revision petition in cases where the District Commission has acted extra-judicially or the District Commission has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Reverting to the material on record, it is imperative to refer order dated 11.07.2023 passed by the District Commission. The order dated 11.07.2023 makes it clear that the copy of the complaint was supplied to revisionist on 24.05.2023 and the written statement was to be filed before 23.06.2023. However, the written statement was filed on 11.07.2023 beyond the period of limitation. It was filed on 48^th day. Accordingly, the written statement of the Opposite Party No.1/revisionist was not taken on record. We find nothing on record to indicate that the revisionist was not served or supplied the copy of complaint.

7. A perusal of the record clearly suggests that the complete copy of the compla