IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTESREDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 27.01.2026 Date of Hearing: 06.02.2026 Date of Decision: 06.02.2026 REVISION PETITION NO.7/2026 IN THE MATTER OF UMMEED HOUSING FINANCE PVT. LTD.

UNIT NO.809-815, 8^TH FLOOR, EMAAR DIGITAL GREENS, TOWER-A, GOLF COURSE EXT. ROAD, SECTOR-16, GURUGRAM, HARYANA -122102.

ALSO AT:

UNIT NO.302-303, PLOT NO.06, 3^RD FLOOR, ADITYA TOWER, LAXMI NAGAR, DISTRICT CENTRE, DELHI -110092.

…PETITIONER (Through: Mr. ____________, Advocate)

VERSUS

1. NITIN HOUSE NO.62, GALI NO.3, KARAWAL NAGAR, DELHI -110094.

…RESPONDENT CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT HON’BLE MS. BIMLA KUMARI, MEMBER (FEMALE)

PER:HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT

JUDGMENT

1. At the outset, we are of the considered view that issuance of notice to the Respondent is not required in the present revision petition, as the challenge herein is confined to the procedural legality of the filing of written statement within the stipulated period. Further, no adjudication on merits of the consumer complaint is being undertaken at this stage, and the relief sought merely restores the Petitioner’s right of hearing before the District Commission. In view thereof, and as no prejudice is likely to be caused to the Respondent, notice to the Respondent is dispensed with.

2. The Petitioner/OP has filed the present appeal being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 31.10.2025 passed by the District Commission, North East in CC No.498/2024, whereby the application filed by the Petitioner/OP seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statement was dismissed and the written statement filed by the Petitioner was taken off from the record.

3. The Petitioner/OP has filed the present appeal, inter-alia, on the following grounds that the District Commission failed to appreciate that it has filed its written statement within the statutory period of 45 days and the impugned order is violation of the principles of natural justice and the Ld. District Commission has denied the Petitioner a meaningful and effective opportunity to place its defence on record, that the Petitioner has furnished Bonafide explanation, the District Commission has unjustly and prematurely foreclosed the Petitioner’s statutory right to defend the complaint.

4. To adjudicate this issue, we deem it appropriate to refer to Section

38(2)(a) r/w Section 49(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which provides as under:

“Section 38(2): Where the complaint relates to any goods, the District Commission shall:-

2(a) refer a copy of the admitted complaint, within twenty-one days from the date of its admission to the opposite party mentioned in the complaint directing him to give his version of the case within a period of thirty days or such extended period not exceeding fifteen days as may be granted by it;”

Section 49 (1): The provisions relating to complaints under sections 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39 shall, with such modifications as may be necessary, be applicable to the disposal of complaints by the State Commission.

5. Perusal of the aforesaid statutory position reflects that the written version/written statement against the consumer complaint should be preferred within a period of thirty days or extended period of fifteen days as granted by it, from the date of receipt of the copy of the Complaint alongwith notice.

6. It is well settled position that if the written statement is filed beyond the period of 30 days but with the extended period of 15 days, it is upon the discretion of the adjudicating Court to condone the delay if sufficient cause has been provided by the Opposite Party.

7. In order to condone the delay, the Opposite Party has to satisfy this Commission that there was sufficient cause for filing the written statement after the stipulated period. The term ‘sufficient cause’ has been explained by the Apex Court in Basawaraj and Ors. v. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer reported in AIR 2014 SC 746. The relevant paras of the afores