IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 04.12.2024 Date of Hearing: 21.02.2025 Date of Decision: 11.03.2025 REVISION PETITION NO. – 61/2024 IN THE MATTER OF UNION BANK OF INDIA, Having its Head Office at: Union Bank Bhawan, 239, Vidhan Bhawan Marg, Mumbai-400021, Branch Office at:

C-4, Community Centre, Safdarjung Development Authority (SDA), New Delhi-110016.

(Through: Mr. Gautam Gupta & Associates)

…Revisionist VERSUS MRS. SANGEETA SEHRAWAT, C/o Tejveer Singh Bana, FC-92, Lajpat Nagar, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, U.P.

(Through: Mr. Junhai Prabhakar, Advocate)

... Respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

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

Present: Mr. Gautam Gupta along with Mr. Uzair Elahi, counsel for the Revisionist.

Ms. Junhai Prabhakar, counsel for the Respondent (through VC).

PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT

JUDGMENT

1. The Revisionist/Opposite Party has preferred the present Revision Petition under Section 47(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 seeking revision of the impugned order dated 14.10.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Udyog Sadan, Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi in Consumer Complaint No. 161/2024.

2. Vide impugned order dated 14.10.2024, the District Commission closed the right of the Revisionist to file written statement in the following terms:

“Counsel for complainant had supplied the complaint copy on the last date of hearing however, counsel for OP had requested that some of the documents were illegible and therefore those were supplied on 13.09.2024.

On the 36^th day the OP had sought for better copy of documents and thereafter has also not filed the WS within 45 days. Today, OP is filing his WS, which cannot be taken on record being not in time.

List on 11.12.2024 for complainant's evidence.”

3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of District Commission, the Revisionist has approached this Commission contending that the District Commission has erred in closing the right of the Revisionist/Opposite Party to file the written statement before the District Commission. The Revisionist further submitted that the District Commission failed to consider that some of the pages of the copy of Complaint were missing when it was received by the Revisionist on 07.08.2024. Further, the Revisionist submitted that the reminder was sent through WhatsApp to the counsel for the Respondent and the complete copy of the complaint was received by the Revisionist on 13.09.2024 and the written statement before the District Commission was filed on 14.10.2024 which was not taken on record by the District Commission. Pressing the aforesaid, Revisionist prayed for setting aside the order dated 14.10.2024 passed by the District Commission.

4. The Respondent/Complainant was directed to file the reply to the present Revision Petition, however, the same is not available on record.

5. The written arguments have been filed by the Revisionist and the same have been considered.

6. We have perused the material available on record including the District Commission record available on record and heard the counsel for the parties.

7. The main question for consideration before us is whether the District Commission was right in rejecting the written statement filed by the Revisionist on 14.10.2024.

8. To resolve this issue, we have perused the material available on record and find that it is clear that the scanned copy of the complaint was collected by the Revisionist from the Respondent on 07.08.2024. Further, the scanned copy of the complaint was incomplete as some of the pages were missing from the pdf of the scanned complaint. Therefore, the counsel for the Revisionist requested the Respondent/Complainant to send the fresh scanned copy of the Complaint which was received by the Revisionist on 13.09.2024. Further, we find that the District Commission has taken the submission of the Revisionist on record and observed that the Revis