IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 11.04.2023 Date of hearing: 17.03.2025 Date of Decision: 26.03.2025 REVISION PETITION NO.- 20/2023 IN THE MATTER OF:

M/S COMPETENT AUTOMOBILES CO. LTD., F-14, MIDDLE CIRCLE, COMPETENT HOUSE, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI.

ALSO, AT:

M/S COMPETENT AUTOMOBILES CO. LTD., PLOT NO.3, GHAZIPUR, DELHI – 110096.

(Through: Ms. A. Subhashni & Mr. Praveen Maheshwari)

.…Revisionist VERSUS

1. MR. SESH DATTA SHARMA, R/O A-16/2, CHANDER VIHAR, DELHI – 110092.

…Respondent no.1 in person

2. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIV. NO. 10, FLAT NO. 101-106, N1, BMC HOUSE, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI – 110001.

CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Present: None for revisionist.

Respondent no.1 in person who is also a practicing lawyer (Enrl. No.

UP/787/1973, Mobile: 9868112138, Email:

sheshdattsharma18@gmail.com).

None for respondent no.2.

PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

ORDER

1. The present Revision Petition has been preferred by the Petitioner, impugning the order dated 11.01.2023, passed by the District Commission in Consumer Complaint No. 43/2020, titled Shesh Datta Sharma Vs. M/s Competent Automobiles Co. P. Ltd., whereby the written statement filed by the Revisionist was not taken on record as it was filed beyond the statutory period prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

2. The Counsel for the Revisionist submitted that the District Commission failed to appreciate the fact that the affidavit in support of the written statement was attested on 31.08.2022 and was received from the Petitioner on 03.09.2022 for filing. However, the same could not be filed on 03.09.2022 as it was a Saturday. More so, the counsel for the Revisionist was unwell on the 1^st and 2^nd of September and was not in a position to attend the office on those two days. Therefore, the written statement could only be filed on 05.09.2022. Lastly, he submitted that the District Commission failed to apply judicial mind while passing the said order, as the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in a catena of judgments that the Commission can exercise its discretion in allowing a reply filed beyond the prescribed 30-day period. Pressing these contentions, the Revisionist has prayed that the impugned order dated 11.01.2023 be set aside.

3. The Respondent No.1 was directed to file a reply to the present Revision Petition. However, the Respondent No.1 failed to file the same.

4. The Revisionist was given multiple opportunities to file written arguments but has failed to file the same till date.

5. On the other hand, the Respondent No.1 has filed written arguments and denied all the submissions of the Revisionist. It was further submitted that there is no error in the impugned order, as the entire material available on record was properly scrutinized before passing the said order.

6. We have perused the material available before us and heard the counsel for the Respondent no.1.

7. The main question for consideration before us is whether the impugned order dated 11.01.2023, passed by the District Commission, is suffering from any infirmity?

8. 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.”

9. 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 jurisdic