IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 19.12.2024 Date of Hearing: 18.12.2025 Date of Decision: 10.03.2026 FIRST APPEAL NO. –11/25 (FA- 805/2024)

IN THE MATTER OF ABHIJIT REALTORS & INFRAVENTURES PVT. LTD., REGISTERED OFFICE: S-1, JAYANTI MANSION- I, MANISH NAGAR, SOMALWADA, WARDHA ROAD, NAGPUR – 440015.

CORPORATE OFFICE: F-31 & 32, LEVEL ONE, JAYANTI MANSION- III, ABOVE RELIANCE FRESH, MANISH NAGAR, SOMALWADA, NAGPUR.

(Through: Mr. Yashodhan Chandurkar, Advocate)

…Appellant VERSUS MRS. PRATIBHA GEDAM, 324/4, FLAT NO. 305, SHIRDI APARTMENT, MEHRAULI, GADAIPUR, NEW DELHI.

(Through: Ms. Naina Walia, Advocate)

…Respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

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

Present: Mr. Yashodhan Chandurkar, Counsel for the Appellant None for the Respondent.

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 12.11.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission- II, South-I, New Delhi in Consumer Complaint No. 172/2024 whereby the right of the Opposite Party to file written statement was closed in the following terms:

“OP-1 appeared and collected complaint copy on 29.08.2024 till date no reply has been filed on behalf of the OP therefore right to file reply is closed. List on 13.01.2025 for complainant‟s evidence. At this stage, Adv. Yashodhan Chandurkar appeared for OP-1 and has been informed about the order.”

2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Commission, the Appellant has preferred the present appeal submitting that the District Commission has erred in not taking the written statement on record and in closing the right of defence of the Appellant. The counsel for the Appellant further submitted that the District Commission has failed to consider that the Appellant has filed the written statement through E-filing portal i.e. E-Daakhil on 14.10.2024. Pressing the aforesaid, the counsel for the Appellant prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the District Commission.

3. The Respondent, on the other hand, filed reply to the present Appeal wherein, he denied all the allegations of the Appellant and submitted that there is no error in the impugned order as the Appellant has received the copy of complaint on 29.0.2024 and e-filled their written statement beyond the stipulated period as prescribed in the Consumer Protection Act.

4. The written submissions have been filed by the Appellant, wherein the contents of the Appeal have been reiterated by the Appellant and the same has been duly considered at the stage of final arguments by this Commission.

5. We have perused the material available on record.

6. The main question for consideration before us is whether the District Commission erred in closing the right of defence of the Appellant/Opposite Party.

7. To resolve this issue, we have perused the material available on record and find that it is admitted that the notice along with the copy of complaint was collected by the Appellant on 29.08.2024 and further the Appellant submitted that he has filed the written statement through online portal E-Daakhil on 14.10.2024. Therefore, if we calculate the period of limitation starting from 29.08.2024, it is clear that the limitation period of 30 days for filing the written statement was closed on 28.09.2024. Further, the written statement was allegedly filed before District Commission through online portal on 14.10.2024 is evidently beyond the stipulated period of 30 days as well as beyond the extended period of 15 days.

8. At this point, it is appropriate to refer to the case of New India Assurance Vs Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd reported in (2020) 5 SCC 757 wherein the Apex Court held as under:-

“8. A bare reading of Section 13(2)(a) of the Act makes it clear that the copy of the complaint which is to be sent to the opposite