The statutory period for filing a written statement under the Consumer Protection Act is strict (30+15 days). Technical issues with email attachments, without contemporaneous communication to the opposite party, cannot justify a delay in filing or extend the statutory limitation.

PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT

JUDGMENT

1. The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner under section 47(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 challenging the impugned order dated 17.08.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – VIII, Central District, GNCT of Delhi, Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006 in M.A. No. 266/2024 filed in Consumer Complaint Case No. 232/2024 filed by Petitioner/ Complainant against the Respondent/ Opposite Party. Vide impugned order dated 17.08.2024, the District Commission has dismissed the application filed by the Appellant/Complainant in the following terms

“Complainant’s application MA-266/2024 filed under the title Order VI Rule 17 CPC is pending for arguments today. The OP files reply, its copy is given to the other side. It is heard.

2.1 Briefly, the complainant/applicant by way of application under consideration request to strike of the written statement and the substance of application, on its plain reading, the actual request is that the written statement filed on 05.09.2023 was beyond the statutory period provided under the Consumer Protection Act as well as the law laid down in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilly India Multi Purposes Cold Storage Ltd. 2020 5 SCC 757. That is why it needs to strike/remove of written statement from the record.

The factual position explained is that the OP was served on 30.06.2023 by email and speed post was served on 18.07.2023 and by computing period from the later date of 18.07.2023, the written statement filed on 05.09.2023 is beyond the statutory period. That is why it cannot be taken on the record. This is the gist of application and the oral submission has already been mentioned in the aforementioned main paragraph.

2.2 This application is opposed on all counts, firstly the emails sent was having attachment but it was not opened, the speed post receipt was just containing notice but without copy of complaint and annexure and thence efforts were made to gather the record. By repeating the three attempts, the OP was able to access the attachment but till then it wet middle of August 2023, immediately the written statement was prepared and it was filed on 05.09.2023. Moreover, there was no directions by Ld. Predecessors/Commission for notice in June 2023 but the directions were given by order dated 17.07.2021 for notice to the OP for next date Le. 17.10.2023. The registered cover receipt was not containing copy of complaint, consequently the OP was not able to prepare the written statement, however, since the access to email was succeeded in the middle of August 2023, on that very basis the written statement was prepared. In addition, the complainant has earlier filed an application under the title Order VIII Rule 10 CPC, this application was withdrawn on 17.10.2023, consequently this application is not maintainable.

During the phase of submission, it was enquired whether any record or foot print are left in the access of mail that it was actually in the middle of August 2023, it was responded that no such record is known. When the email was received then an attachment also linked but that link was not success in first two attempts but subsequently either there was permission or otherwise the third attempt was succeeded in August 2023] In this continuity Ld. Counsel for OP explains that since written statement was filed on 05.0