PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT

JUDGMENT

1. The present Appeal has been preferred under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the impugned order dated 14.08.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – I, North-Distt., GNCTD of Delhi, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi-110054 in Consumer Complaint No. 395/2022 whereby the District Commission disposed off the two applications filed by the Appellants/ Opposite Parties in the following terms:

“1. By way of this order, we will be disposing of two applications filed by the OP. By way of first review application dated 21.04.2023 by which OP has prayed for review of our order dated 09.02.2023 and to accept the reply of the OP on the ground that the service to the OP was faulty. By way of second application dated 14.06.2023, the OP has sought permission to file legible copy of the annexures filing along with review application.

2. We issued notice on both these applications and have heard the parties at length. In the first review application, the OP has pleaded that the notices issued by this Commission to the OP were sent to the addresses of the OP which were closed and the notices for such closure of the offices were duly published and notified. It is stated that the Bulandshahr office of the OP, which is the policy issuing and servicing branch has now merged with Meerut divisional office and currently not working at the said address. It is also stated that the second address of the OP of its Bhawbhuti Marg branch in Delhi is neither the head/registered office of OP nor is it the policy issuing branch. It is also stated that the Bhawbhuti Marg, Delhi Office has also shifted to Lakshmi Nagar, Delhi.

3. In support of the claim that shifting of both these offices, OP has placed on record the newspaper advertisements giving notice to the shifting of the offices. However, these newspaper notice advertisements were not legible and blurred. We directed the OP to file better copy of these documents, but when the legible copy was filed, it did not indicate the date of publication or the name of newspaper where these were published. We also directed the Sr. Divisional Manager Shri Rajesh Kumar to remain present before this Commission for explaining that why illegible and blurred copy of the documents were filed before this Commission. But he did not appear despite repeated orders, he did not appear. His non-appearance has been viewed very seriously by this Commission and it was directed that appropriate order shall be passed against Shri Rajesh Kumar, Sr. Divisional Manager for wilfully disobeying the order of this Commission.

4. Hence, for the wilful disobedience of the order of this Commission and non-appearance of Shri Rajesh Kumar, Sr. Divisional Manager, while using our powers under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, issue notice to Shri Rajesh Kumar, Sr. Divisional Manager, to show cause as to why penalty for non-compliance of our orders, as prescribed under section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, be not imposed on him.

5. On the review application, before the final order could be passed, OP has filed second application on 14.06.2023 by which the OP has sought permission to place on record the legible copy of the documents in support of the review application. These annexures indicate the newspaper publication of notice for shifting of the Bulandshar office w.e.f. 01.02.2023 and shifting of Delhi office from the Bhawbhiuti Marg, Delhi office w.e.f. 30.04.2019.

6. Ld. Advocate for the Complainant has opposed both these application. He has also stated that the applications filed by the OP must be dismissed and OP should not be permitted to file its reply.

7. It is indeed a fact that addresses of the OP as given in the memo of parties of the complaint are not functioning at the said addresses. The Bhawbhuti Marg office was shifted w.e.f. 30.04.2019 and Bulandshar office has shifted w.e.f. 01.