STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND DEHRADUN Date of Admission: 16.04.2025 Date of Final Hearing: 13.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 17.03.2026 SC/5/RP/2/2025 Sh. Sandeep Kumar Sharma aged about 45 years’ S/o late Nathu Ram R/o 507, Chabilbagh, Kanwali Road P.S. Kotwali, Dehradun (Through: Sh. Vaibhav Jain, Advocate)

…… Revisionist Versus

1. Sh. Kamal Jain S/o late Sewaram Jain R/o U-32, Lane No. 2, Phase 4 Lok Vihar, Shiv Vihar, Karawal Nagar Delhi East – 110094 (Through: Sh. Ankit Sahni, Advocate)

2. Sahara India

5/457, Lane No. 1, Pandav Road Vishwas Nagar, Maharay Mohalla Kabul Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi – 110032 (Through: None)

3. Saharayn Universal Multipurpose Society Ltd.

195, Zone-I, In front of D.V. Mall M.P. Nagar, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh – 462011 (Through: None)

…… Opposite Parties Coram:

Ms. Kumkum Rani, President Mr. B.S. Manral, Member

ORDER

(Per: Ms. Kumkum Rani, President):

This revision petition under Section 47(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has been directed against the impugned order dated 29.01.2025 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun (hereinafter to be referred as “The District Commission”) in consumer complaint No. 649 of 2022, styled as Sh. Sandeep Kumar Sharma Vs. Sh. Kamal Jain and others, whereby the application dated 07.12.2022, copy whereof is Paper Nos. 24 to 25, moved by the revisionist / complainant, with a prayer to reject the written statement filed by opposite party No. 1 – Sh. Kamal Jain, being not maintainable having been filed beyond the statutory period of limitation, was dismissed.

2. We have heard Sh. Vaibhav Jain, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as Sh. Ankit Sahni, learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 and perused the record. Inspite of sufficient service, none appeared on behalf of opposite party Nos. 2 & 3.

3. The revisionist herein – Sh. Sandeep Kumar Sharma was the complainant before the District Commission and be submitted the aforesaid consumer complaint against the opposite parties – Sh. Kamal Jain; Sahara India and Saharayn Universal Multipurpose Society Ltd., before the District Commission on 22.09.2022, on which notices were issued to the opposite parties, fixing 28.10.2022 for written statement. It is undisputed that the summons / notice issued by the District Commission in the aforesaid consumer complaint was duly served upon by the opposite party No. 1 – Sh. Kamal Jain on 29.09.2022. It is further undisputed that the written statement on behalf of opposite party No. 1 was presented before the District Commission on 22.11.2022.

4. Since the written statement was filed by the opposite party No. 1 beyond the maximum period of 45 days’, which can be allowed for filing the written statement, hence the application dated 07.12.2022 was moved on behalf of the revisionist for rejecting the written statement filed by opposite party No. 1. The District Commission per impugned order dated 29.01.2025 has dismissed the said application.

5. While dismissing the application moved by the revisionist, the District Commission has held that since the then President / Presiding Officer of the District Commission heading the Bench vide order dated 22.11.2022 has joined the written statement in the record, by ordering ;kfs tr gks “ ”, to which the complainant did not raise any objection, hence the application moved by the complainant has no propriety.

6. We do not subscribe to such an absurd observation / finding recorded by the District Commission. The consumer complaint was filed before the District Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short “the Act”). The provision for filing written statement by the opposite party to the consumer complaint, is envisaged in Section 38(3)(a) of the Act, which reads as under:

“(a) refer a copy of such complaint to the opposite party directing him to give his version of the case within a period of thirty days or such extended period not exceeding fifteen days as may be granted