IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 30.10.2023 Date of hearing: 28.01.2026 Date of Decision: 10.03.2026 REVISION PETITION NO. – 67/2023 IN THE MATTER OF HONDA CARS INDIA LTD., THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, REGISTERED OFFICE AT:

PLOT NO. A-1, SECTOR 40/41, SURAJPUR-KASNA ROAD, GREATER NOIDA IDA, DISTRICT GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR (UP)-201306.

(Through: Mr. Ashish Chauhan &

Ms. Sonal Chauhan, Advocates)

…Revisionist VERSUS

1. MRS. NEELAM KHANNA, W/O MR. RAVINDRA KHANNA, R/O C-5/86-87, SECTOR-6, ROHINI, DELHI-110085.

THROUGH HER HUSBAND/ATTORNEY:

MR. RAVINDRA KHANNA.

(Through: Mr. Ravindra Khanna, Advocate)

2. M/S SUGOI MOTORS PVT. LTD., (RING ROAD HONDA)

A-2, UDYOG NAGAR INDUSTRIAL AREA, ROHTAK ROAD, NEAR PEERAGARHI CHOWK, NEW DELHI-110041.

(Through: Mr. Chandan Malik, Advocate)

…Respondents CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

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

Present: Mr. Ashish Chauhan and Mr. Aditya Gupta, counsel for the Revisionist.

Mr. Bharat Bhushan Dhingra, counsel for the Respondent no. 1.

Mr. Chandan Malik, counsel for the Respondent no. 2.

PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT

JUDGMENT

1. The Revisionist has preferred the present Revision Petition under Section 47 (1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to set aside the impugned order dated 17.08.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission- III, West, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, C-150-151, Community Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058 in Complaint Case No. 329/2022 filed by Respondent no. 1/ Complainant against the Revisionist/ Opposite Party no. 2 and Respondent no. 2/ Opposite Party no. 1. Vide impugned order dated 17.08.2023, the District Commission while deciding upon the application for striking off the right of defence of the Revisionist and has held as under:

“1. Vide order dated 31.8.2022, after hearing arguments for admission of the complaint, the same was admitted to hearing and notice was directed to be issued to OPs 1&2 for 9th December, 2022. On 9th December, 2022, counsel for the complainant filed track report of the notice served on the OPs, according to which OPs 1 & 2 were served on 23.9.2022 and 29.9.2022 respectively. Thereafter, as per order dated 25.3.2023, OP No.1 filed its written statement on 03.03.2023. Thereafter counsel for complainant filed application for striking down the defence of OP No.1 as the same was not filed within the statutory period of 45 days. Copy of the said application was directed to be supplied to counsel for OP No.1 and notice was again directed to be issued to OP No.2 for 17.8.2023.

2. In the order dated 17.8.2023, it is noted that the written statement by OP No.2 was filed on. 18.5.2023 vide diary No.718 and by OP No.1 on 01.3.2023 vide diary No.331. Though in the application filed by the complainant, prayer is made to reject the written statement of OP No.2 only as copy of the same was suppled to complainant only on 17.5.2023 but we find that even the written statement of OP No.1 has been fled beyond the statutory period of 45 days (30+15 days grace period).

3. To appreciate the rival contentions of parties, It may be noted that OP No.1 in its reply to the application of complainant for striking off the defence of OP No.2, has submitted that notice for appearance in this Commission on 09.12.2022 was received by it. However, since some of the annexures of the complaint (pages 36 to 38) were missing, a counsel on behalf of OP No.1 was instructed to appear on the said date and seek those papers in order to file written statement. However, due to frequent change of counsel on behalf of OP No.1 in between, the written statement could finally be filed on 03.03.2023 with advance copy to the complainant on 01.03.2023. Presuming that the complete set of paper book was received by OP No.1 on 09.12.2022 i.e, the next date of hearing fixed, though admittedly the notice as per track report was received by OP No.1 on 23.9.2022, the written st