IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 26.04.2024 Date of Hearing: 03.02.2026 Date of Decision: 10.02.2026 FIRST APPEAL NO. 312/2024 IN THE MATTER OF PUNJAB SIND BANK, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, 21, RAJENDRA PLACE, NEW DELHI-110005.

THE BRANCH MANAGER PUNJAB AND SIND BANK, JASPAL KAUR PUBLIC SCHOOL SHALIMAR BAGH, NEW DELHI-110088.

THE BRANCH MANAGER PUNJAB AND SIND BANK, WEST PATEL NAGAR BRANCH, NEW DELHI-110008.

THE BRANCH MANAGER PUNJAB AND SIND BANK, MALKAGANJ BRANCH, DELHI-110007.

(Through: Mr. Rajat Arora, Advocate)

…Appellants VERSUS MR. KAMALJIT SINGH BHATIA, S/O MR. AMRIT SINGH R/O AC-92-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, NEW DELHI-110088.

(Through: Mr. Ashok Kr Choudhary, Advocate)

…Respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

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

Present: Mr Rajat Arora, Counsel for the Appellants.

Mr. G. S. Chaturvedi, Counsel for the Respondent.

PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT

JUDGMENT

1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:

“1. Vide this order we will be deciding the application of the Opposite Party praying for condonation of delay in filing written statement by the OP.

2. Present complaint has been filed by complainant seeking direction to OPs to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- with interest, cost and compensation.

3. Present complaint was admitted vide order dated 28.02.2022 and Notice was issued to OP. Written Statement was filed by OP on 19.09.2022 vide diary No. 1666 dated 19.09.2022 apparently beyond statutory period of 30 days along. Application for condonation of delay in filing WS was also filed by OP vide diary No. 2945 dated 15.03.2023.

4. It is stated by the OP in the application praying for condonation of delay in filing WS that OP had received the summons in the case dated 30.04.2022 on or about

05.05.2022.

5. It is further stated that OP bank had forwarded the complaint as received from this Commission to the advocate Sh. Rajat Arora to prepare the reply and attend to the matter on 11.10.2022. That when the papers were seen / scrutinized by the advocate in the month of May 2022 it transpired that the some of the annexures along with the complaint were very dim and illegible. It is stated that the counsel for the OP requested advocate of complainant to deliver him better and legible copies of the entire complaint on his mobile phone and in July 2022 and thereafter via letter sent through speed post on 20.08.2022. The counsel of complainant sent documents in the last week of August 2022. Thereafter Written statement was prepared and filed on 05.09.2022.”

6. It is stated that the above circumstances would show that the delay in filing the reply if any is on account of the fact that the legible copy of the complaint annexure was only made available in the end of August 2022 and the reply has been filed immediately thereafter. The date of hearing was 11.10.2022 the reply was filed much earlier to the said date. 7. Complainant has filed reply to the application for condonation of delay and strongly opposed filing of WS beyond statutory period and therefore has prayed for taking off the same from the record and close the defence of the OP. 8. It is stated by the complainant that OP admitted that it received summons on 05.05.2022 and the reply was filed after four months on 05.09.2022. It is stated that first request for requesting for legible copies was admittedly made on 20.08.2022 i.e. after a period of more than 107 days. It is denied that some annexures were not legible. It is merely false excuse for not filing reply within time. The first request has been made in the terms of letter sent by speed post itself on 20.08.2022. The contents of the said letter are absolutely vague not mentioning as to which annexure is dim further there is nothing on record that this letter was complied or not by the counsel of the complainant. It is stated that since the letter dated 20.08.2022 sent after more than three months of s