STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN Date of Institution : 16.05.2025 Date of Final Hearing : 09.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 25.03.2026 SC/5/RP/5/2025

1. Kshetriya Prabandhak Uttar Pradesh Parivahan Nigam Sahibabad Depot, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh

2. Mahaprabandhak Uttar Pradesh Parivahan Nigam Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh (Through: Sh. Arjun Singh Bisht, Advocate)

…...Revisionists VERSUS

1. Sh. Sanjeevan Ram S/o Late Sh. Panchu Ram R/o Naya Goan, Badripur, Haridwar Road, Near Kailash Hospital, Dehradun (Through: Sh. Pradeep Bartwal, Advocate)

….. Opposite Party No. 1

2. Sh. Ashok Kumar S/o Sh. Narottam Singh Presently posted at Uttar Pradesh Parivahan Nigam Sahibabad Depot, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh (Bus Conductor)

(Through: None)

…..Performa Opposite Party No. 2

3. Sh. Ajaypal S/o Sh. Harsaran Singh Presently posted at Uttar Pradesh Parivahan Nigam Sahibabad Depot, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh (Bus Conductor)

(Through: In person)

….. Performa Opposite Party No. 3 Coram:

Ms. Kumkum Rani, President Mr. C.M. Singh, Member

ORDER

(Per: C.M. Singh, Member):

The present revision petition under Section 47 (1)(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has been preferred against the impugned order dated 07.01.2025 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 83 of 2024 styled as Sh. Sanjeevan Ram Vs. Mahaprabandhak Uttar Pradesh Parivahan Nigam, Lucknow & Ors., wherein and whereby the District Commission has declined to take the written statement on record submitted by the revisionists on the ground that the same had been filed beyond the statutory period prescribed under law.

2. The limited question that arises for consideration in the present revision petition is whether the District Commission committed any jurisdictional error or material irregularity in refusing to accept the written statement filed by the revisionists beyond the period stipulated under statute.

3. Learned counsel Sh. Arjun Singh Bisht for the revisionists as well as learned counsel Sh. Pradeep Bartwal for opposite party No. 1 has appeared. Sh. Ajay Pal – performa opposite party No. 3 has also appeared in person.

None has appeared on behalf of performa opposite party No. 2.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order sheets of the complaint case.

5. Section 38(2)(a) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 mandate that upon admission of the complaint, the District Commission shall forward a copy thereof to the opposite parties directing him to file his version within a period of 30 days, which may be extended by a further period not extended 15 days. Thus, the statute prescribed outer limit of 45 days from the date of service notice alongwith copy of complaint for filing of written statement. Further, Regulation 10 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2020 also specifies the procedure of issuing notice, which should be accompanied by copy of the complaint. Regulation 10(5) clearly mentions that along with the notice, copies of the complaint, memorandum of grounds of appeal, petitions as the case may be and other documents filed shall be served upon the opposite party / respondent.

6. A perusal of the record of the District Commission reveals that the complainant had filed the complaint alongwith a list of documents comprising in all 20 pages (paper Nos. 5 to 24 of the District Commission’s record). The record further discloses that the complainant claims that he had sent copy of complaint alongwith annexures and documents to the opposite parties (paper No. 42 of the District Commission’s record) on dated 10.10.2024 and 17.10.2024 respectively.

7. However, a closer scrutiny of the postal receipts pasted at paper No. 26 of the District Commission’s record pertaining to service upon shows that the weight of the postal articles was recorded as 56gms. in respect of revisionist No. 1 and 46gms. in respect of revisionist No. 2. It is a matter of common experience that weight of a single A-4 size shee