IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 28.01.2025 Date of hearing: 09.02.2026 Date of Decision: 10.03.2026 FIRST APPEAL NO.-16/2025 IN THE MATTER OF MR. HIMANSHU JOSHI, S/O PROF. SATISH JOSHI, C/O 304, NESHVILLA ROAD, DEHRADUN, UTTARAKHAND -248001.

(Through: Anjna Masih & Nikhil Kataria, Advocates)

…Appellant VERSUS MR. NITEN KOCHHAR, S/O MR. SATYA PAL KOCCHAR, R/O 26, SHANTI KUNJ MAIN, FIRST FLOOR, CHURCH ROAD, VASANT KUNJ, DELHI – 110070.

(Through: Mr. Lakshay Dheer, Advocate)

…Respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

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

Present: Ms. Anjna Masih, counsel for the appellant, email:

anjna.advocate@gmail.com) appeared through VC.

None for the respondent.

PER : HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT

JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the Opposite Party/Appellant challenging the Order dated 18.12.2024 passed by the District Commission in Consumer Complaint No. 93/2024, titled Niten Kocchar vs. Himanshu Joshi, whereby the right of the Appellant to file written statement was struck off by the District Commission.

2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the order dated 18.12.2024, whereby it held as under:

“The reply has been filed by the OP on 21.11.2024 as per endorsement by the registry of this Commission.

Ld. Counsel for the complainant has filed postal receipts, courier receipts, tracking report and affidavit in support of service of notice and complaint to the OP.

The OP was served by way of speed post on 20.05.2024, by way of courier on 21.05.2024 and by way of an email on 21.05.2024.

The reply has been filed by the OP on 21.11.2024. The reply has been filed beyond the period of 30 days which is extendable

15 days. Reply is beyond the period prescribed by Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Hence, the defence of OP is struck off.

Put up for evidence by way of an affidavit of the complainant on

01.05.2025.”

3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Appellant has filed the present appeal on the grounds that the Appellant was never duly served with the notice of the complaint either through speed post on 20.05.2024 or through courier on 21.05.2024, as there were several houses at the mentioned address and anyone could have received the same. The counsel for the Appellant further contended that the District Commission failed to appreciate the fact that the copy of the complaint and documents was supplied to the Appellant only on 21.10.2024 and the Appellant filed the reply on 21.11.2024 within the statutory period of 30 days. He further contended that the Respondent asked for the email ID of the Appellant to serve him a copy of the complaint and documents and served him again on 21.10.2024, despite the fact that the Respondent had earlier claimed that service had already been effected. Lastly, he contended that no prejudice would have been caused to the Respondent had the reply been taken on record and that the Appellant acted bona fide and diligently upon gaining knowledge of the proceedings. Pressing the aforesaid contentions, the Appellant has prayed for setting aside of the impugned order.

4. The Respondent has filed a reply to the present appeal and denied all the allegations of the Appellant. He further submitted that there is no error in the impugned order dated 18.12.2024 as the Appellant was duly served through registered speed post on 20.05.2024, through courier on 21.05.2024 and through email on 24.05.2024 and an affidavit of service in this regard was also filed before the District Commission. Moreover, he also submitted that in pursuance of such service, counsel for the Respondent appeared before the District Commission on 28.08.2024; however, the Appellant remained absent. Lastly, it is submitted that the Appellant is deliberately delaying and derailing the proceedings. Accordingly, the Respondent has prayed for dismissal of the present appeal.

5. The