The statutory period of 45 days for filing a written statement under Section 38(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, is mandatory and cannot be extended by the consumer fora.

ORDER

(Delivered on 22/12/2025)

Per Mrs Kalyani Kapse, Honble Presiding Member

1. This Revision Petition has been filed under Section 47(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for the sake of brevity The Act) Being aggrieved by the Order dated 13/12/2024 passed by Learned Additional District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Nagpur, in Consumer Complaint No. CC/24/197 (Ashok Zade ...vs... Vighnaharta Developers)

2. After filing of the Revision Petition, Notice was served to the Respondent. Respondent appeared and filed its say on 09/05/2025

3. We have heard Mr. A.N. Jaiswal, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Ashok R. Zade the Respondent in person. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner submitted that Complainant has filed Consumer Complaint which is proceeded No W.S. order. Hence the OP by this Revision Petition challenging the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned Order on the following facts & grounds:

4. After receipt of Notice, the Revision Petitioner/O.P. has filed his appearance on 08/11/2024 and on said date, the Counsel for Petitioner /O.P. has filed his Vakalatnama along with Application for grant of time to file Reply as well as Application for direction to supply copies of documents. It is submitted that thereafter the matter was posted on 14/11/2024 and on said date, the Respondent filed his Say on application for direction to supply copies of documents and thereafter, the Learned District Commission was pleased to allow said application by imposing cost of Rs.2000/- payable by Petitioner /O.P. and the matter was posted on 13/12/2024.

5. Learned DCDRC, thereby refused to take the written reply on record and further directed to proceed the complaint Without Reply of Petitioner/O.P. and also imposed a cost of Rs.5000/- upon Petitioner/O.P. hence OP has filed present Revision Petition against the impugned order on the following grounds.

6. The Learned District Commission, Nagpur has committed grave error on facts and law and therefore, the impugned order is perverse and liable to be quashed and set aside.

7. The Learned District Commission has failed to appreciate the contention of Counsel for Petitioner /O.P. that the Written Reply was prepared only on the basis of copy of complaint received by him and not on the basis of documents.

8. Petitioner has also raised the ground that the act of Learned District Commission in drawing adverse inference that the Appellant/O.P. has misled the Commission by filing the Written Reply without receiving the documents, is totally misconceived and imaginary and is totally based on surmises and conjectures. The Petitioner/O.P. has filed the Written Reply on 13/12/2024 itself without waiting for receipt of documents, is only to avoid the delay and not to cause delay. However, the Learned District Commission has unnecessarily taken out an adverse inference of the same and with prejudice mind, refused to take the Written Reply on record on flimsy ground and thus, committed grave error in law.

9. It is pertinent to note that, the Original Complainant/Respondent had filed the Consumer Complaint No. CC/24/197 titled as Ashok Zade.. vs.. Vighnaharta Developers, on 18/07/2024. The Add. District commission passed order and send notice to present petitioner with application of complaint and all document by R.P.A.D. on 28/09/2024. The postal receipt no. RM440252241IN, gross weight of envelope is 142 grams, amount is Rs. 70.80/