Date of filing :08.04.2024 Date of order :10.07.2025 MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,MUMBAI, BENCH AT CHHATRAPATI SAMBHAJINAGAR. REVISION PETITION NO. : 28 OF 2024 IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 557 OF 2022 DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION : AURANGABAD.

Dr.Anjana S.Shah Rev. Petitioner.

Clinic Add- C/30, Our Home. (Adv.Kalpana Sawale)

Society, Sahakar Nagar, Next to Apna Bazar, JP Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai. 400 053 VERSUS Priyanka Shirsat, Respondent R/o 32, Sthuti Apartment (Adv.S.N.Menchirel)

Sangita Colony, Aurangabad.

CORAM : Milind.S.Sonawane, Hon’ble Presiding Member.

Dr.Nisha A.Chavhan, Hon’ble Member.

Nagesh C.Kumbre, Hon’ble Member.

J U D G M E N T

(Delivered on 10/07/2025)

Per Mr.Nagesh C.Kumbre, Hon’ble Member.

This revision petition has been preferred under Section 47 (1)

(b) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 (in short, the C.P.A.) against the order dated 05.02.2024 passed by the District Commission Aurangabad, (in short, the District Commission) rejecting the application of revision petitioner with a prayer to condone the delay for filing her written statement in consumer complaint C.C.No. 557/2024.

2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the present revision petition are that, the Consumer Complaint C.C.No. 557/2024 under section 35 of the C.P.A. was filed by present respondent, wherein the revision petitioner is opponent before the District Commission. The complaint was admitted and Petitioner was appeared before the District Commission and filed reply on 17.01 2023 with liberty to file the detailed reply, because she has not received all document annexed with the complaint. Petitioner has not received the documents therefore filed reply on 21.06.2023, on the basis of the reply notice sent to her by advocate of the respondent. It is further contended that, as her reply dated 17.01.2023 was misplaced in the Commission, Commission asks her to file fresh application for permission to admit the delayed reply filed by her on 21.06.2024. As such petitioner filed an application on 05.02.2024 but the application was rejected by the District Commission and passed the “No W.S.” order and proceeded the complaint “Without Say” of petitioner. Therefore revision petitioner filed this revision petition against the impugned order dated 05.02.2024. Petitioner filed copy of application and impugned order dated 05.02.2024, copy of rojnama dated

10.11.2022, 17.01.2023 and 19.10.2023, copy of complaint etc.

3. The petitioner and her advocate Kalpana Sawale neither present before this Commission nor filed written argument since long. As per the order of this Commission dated 25.06.2025, we heard Adv. S.N.Menchirel for respondent. The pleading of petitioner is taken in to consideration for adjudication of the case. 4. We have gone through the impugned order, entire record of the revision petition and also thoughtfully consider the argument.

It appears from record of the case that, complaint was admitted on 10.11.2022 and notice was issued against petitioner.On 25.11.2022 notice was duly served on petitioner. Petitioner was appeared before the District Commission on 17.01.2023 but as per the Rojnama, the text regarding filing of written statement and Vakalatnama by petitioner appears to have been deleted by the District Commission. Petitioner has not filed any evidence to show that, she had filed the reply on 17.01.2023 and on 21.06.2024 before the District Commission. Also nothing is on record to show that the reply filed by petitioner on 17.01.2023 was misplaced in the Commission. It is the contention of the petitioner that, she has not received all the documents annexed with the complaint but there is no evidence on record to show that, on the date of appearance i.e. on 17.01.2023 petitioner or her advocate has raised the objection before the District Commission that they have not received the documents annexed with complaint from the respondent. Petitioner has not filed any record to show that, she has not received the document