IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 24.04.2023 Date of Hearing: 17.01.2025 Date of Decision: 03.02.2025 FIRST APPEAL NO.- 172/2023 IN THE MATTER OF NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., R.O. 1, RG CITY CENTRE, 2^ND/3^RD FLOOR, LSC, BLOCK- B, LAWRANCE ROAD, NEW DELHI- 35. (Through: Mr. D. N. Singal, Advocate)

…Appellant VERSUS M/S DSCL-FENGSHUN WABAG CONSORTIUM, E-9, 3^RD FLOOR, SOUTH EXTENTION PART- II, NEW DELHI 110049.

(Through: Mr. Saurabh Chaturvedi, Advocate)

…Respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MR. J. P. AGRAWAL, MEMBER (GENERAL)

Present: Dr. D. N. Singal, Counsel for the Appellant (Email: dnsingal1951@gmail.com, singaldn@gmail.com)

Mr. Saurabh Chaturvedi, Counsel for the Respondent (Email:

(advsaurabhchaturvedi@gmail.com).

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 21.01.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, South Delhi in Complaint Case no. 111/2022 filed by Respondent/Complainant against the Appellant/Opposite Party. Vide impugned order dated 21.01.2023, the District Commission while deciding upon the application for condonation of delay in filing the written statement has held as follows:

“An application for reviewing the order dated 10.10.2022 been filed on behalf of the complainant stating that reply filed by OP cannot be taken on record being beyond the stipulated time. Counsel for the complainant has stated that he had supplied soft copy of the complaint to the Counsel for OP-1 on his e-mail on 25.07.2022 but has filed the WS/Reply only on 15.09.2022 and therefore it is not within time. Reply to the application has been filed by the OP.

It is seen from the order dated 22.07.2022 that counsel for the complainant had undertaken to supply soft copy of the complaint to counsel for OP-1 and liberty was also granted to the OP that in case OP-1 wishes to collect the hard copy of the complaint, he may do so after filing his Vakalatnama. Complaint copy was duly received alongwith documents by OP-1 on 10.08.2022 whereas reply/WS was filed by him on 15.09.2022. The matter was then listed for further orders on 10.10.2022 wherein the WS/ Reply was taken on record. This order was passed in the presence of advocate of the complainant, thereafter on the next date i.e. 07.11.2022, this application was filed on behalf of the complainant.

It is seen that OP was provided soft copy of the complaint on 25.07.2022 on the email provided by counsel for OP himself. Therefore, the time to file reply started from the said date and so the reply filed on 15.09.2022 being beyond time cannot be taken on record.

Order dated 10.10.2022 is reviewed to this extent and it shall be as under Reply filed by OP being beyond stipulated time cannot be taken on record Complainant to file evidence on the next date."

2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Commission, the Appellant/Opposite Party has preferred the present Appeal submitting that the Appellant has received the notice of the complaint case on 15.07.2022, however, copy of the complaint was not annexed with the said notice, therefore, the Appellant vide letter dated 15.07.2022 and 19.07.2022 requested the District Commission-II, South Delhi to send the copy of the complaint along with annexures to the Appellant. Further, the matter was listed on 22.07.2022 and the Appellant again pointed out the requirement of the copy of the complaint as the same was not received by him. Further, the Appellant submitted that the copy of the complaint was received by the Appellant on 10.08.2022 and the written statement was filed by the Appellant on 15.09.2022 which was taken on record by the District Commission vide its order dated 10.10.2022.

3. The Respondent, on the other hand, filed reply to the present appeal wherein, he denied all the allegatio