STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Revision Petition No.RP/24/47 The New India Assurance Co.Ltd.

Regd.off. New India Assurance Building

87, Mahatma Gandhi Road ....... Revision Petitioner/

Fort, Mumbai 400 001 org.OP Versus Winways Digitech Multiservices Pvt.Ltd.

Formerly known as :

M/s.RVH Vaccum Metallizes Pvt.Ltd.

regd.off.: H.No.625, Gala 137, 138

1^st floor, Building NO.E5 …Respondent/Org.

Bhumi World Ind Park Complainant Pimplas Village, Bhiwandi Thane 421 302 BEFORE: Justice S.P.Tavade – President Vijay C.Premchandani – Member Advocate S.S.Dwivedi for Revision petitioner.

PRESENT:

Advocate Mrunal R.Jagadale for respondent.

FINAL ORDER (Dt.24/03/2025)

Per Hon’ble Vijay C.Premchandani – Member

1. The present revision petition is filed by the revision petitioner, who is original opponent against the order dated 11/03/2024 passed by the Ld.District Consumer Commission, Thane in consumer complaint no.CC/22/780.

BRIEF FACTS:-

2. The present revision petition is filed by the original opponent, as the Ld.District Consumer Commission has rejected the application for filing written statement. The petitioner submitted in the application that there is delay of 3 days in filing the written statement in the consumer complaint before the Ld.District Consumer Commission. The Ld.District Consumer Commission was supposed to condone the delay in filing the written statement. However, the same has been rejected, which caused prejudice to the present revision petitioner for not getting the written statement admitted in the record, as such, the present case will not be heard on merits. The impugned order needs to be set aside with a direction to the Ld.District Consumer Commission to allow the present revision petitioner to file the written statement in the original consumer complaint.

THE GROUNDS FOR REVISION PETITION:

3. The present revision petitioner contended that the petitioner received the notice issued by the Ld.District Consumer Commission, Thane as on 20/03/2023. The notice was served to the Petitioner at their H.O., which immediately through e-mail informed to the Mumbai Regional Office about receipt of the notice and called for the claim file. On 27/04/2023, it was recommended to appoint an advocate to appear in the matter. The said advocate refused to accept the case as the advocate was not conversant with the claim pertaining to the marine insurance. As on 04/05/2023, through e- mail the present counsel was appointed to appear in the original consumer complaint. The Ld.District Consumer Commission was having the Holiday from 05/05/2023 to 07/05/2023. The petitioner filed an application for taking the matter on board and the application for filing the written statement as on 08/05/2023. The Ld.District Consumer Commission has rejected the application. The revision petitioner submitted that they have presented the written statement in the original consumer complaint as on 08/05/2023 with only 3 days delay. The Ld.District Consumer Commission ought to have accepted the written statement, which was delayed for 3 days only. The same has been rejected. Hence, the present revision petition is filed.

4. The revision petitioner has prayed that the impugned order dated 11/03/2024 passed in consumer complaint no.CC/22/780 be quashed and set aside and the present revision petitioner may be given an opportunity by filing the written statement in the interest of justice.

5. The present revision petition was admitted and the notice was issued to the respondent. The respondent appeared through advocate and filed written notes of arguments.

6. Heard both the sides and perused the impugned order dated 11/03/2024. Also perused the documents annexed with compilation of the petition. After hearing both the sides, we find that the following order should be passed on the law and reasoning given herein below.

LAW & REASONING:

7. Admittedly, as per section 38(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the opponent is supposed to file its wri