IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 22.04.2025 Date of Hearing: 07.01.2026 Date of Decision: 10.04.2026 FIRST APPEAL NO. 185/2025 IN THE MATTER OF NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, HAVING OFFICE AT:

NATIONAL LEGAL VERTICAL 2, E/9 JHANDEWALAN EXTENSION, 3^RD FLOOR, NEW DELHI-110055.

(Through: Mr. Abhinav Mukhi, Advocate)

…Appellant VERSUS MR. DEVENDER KUMAR S/O. LATE HARI CHAND MIDHA, R/O. H. NO. 37, 4^TH FLOOR, NORTH X, MODEL TOWN, NORTH WEST, DELHI-110009.

(Through: Mr. Vivek Kumar Singh and Mr. Ashish Mohan, Advocate)

…Respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

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

Present: Mr. Abhinav Mukhi, counsel for the Appellant.

Mr. Vivek Kumar Singh & Mr. Ashish Mohan, counsel for the Respondent PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL,PRESIDENT

JUDGMENT

1. The Appellant/Opposite Party has filed the present Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for setting aside the impugned order dated 20.03.2025 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Central District), Govt. of NCT of Delhi in Complaint Case No. 66 of 2024.

2. Vide impugned order dated 20.03.2025, the District Commission has closed the defence of the Appellant/Opposite Party in the following terms:

“1. OP's application MA-235/2024 is heard. The undisputed facts are the OP was served notice on 22.04.2024 and 30 days statutory period for filing the written statement ended on 21.05.2024 and the written statement was brought on 04.09.2024 there is delay of 14 days and that is why the application MA-

235/2024 was filed seeking condonation of delay.

2.1 The application is in narrative, explaining in chronology from the date of receipt of notice in the office of OP and thereafter the process was followed which has been detailed in paragraph 3 of the application but after receipt of notice there is an internal process that matter is to be handled by the legal department as it is to be dealt in the Consumer Commission, however, a legal department was handed over the record in the end of April 2024 and then it reached to the Divisional Office in third week of May 2024. The counsel was engaged by the OP, who put his efforts and energy by preparing the written statement, the counsel was made on 16.05.2024. It was followed by scrutiny and final approval of the draft written statement, thereafter it was presented on 04.06.2024 but till then 14 days delay had happened.

During the course of oral submissions Ld. Counsel for OP has been to the provisions of law as well as appropriate directions to highlight the statutory period provide is 30 days and it can be extended by further period of 15 days and the Commission has discretion to condone delay for the tenure of 15 days vis-a-vis in the present application the delay of 14 days which has been explained that especially in the day to day functioning of government office including insurance company, matter is being dealt by different department like office of OP, claim department, collecting of documents and when by the legal department followed by appropriate briefing to the counsel, the delay of 14 days has satisfactorily explained. It is concluded that there are also catena of rulings by the Superior Courts that the delay can be condone and application/OP deserves.

2.2 However, this application is vehemently opposed by the complainant by way of filing detailed para-wise reply followed by oral submissions but its gist is that applicant admits delay of 14 days and chronology of events explained are speaking of delay but the sufficiency of reason has not been explained. The applicant/OP itself explains that there were certain in house department of OP to deal with the complaint but it is not explained why delay has happened in a particular department, if the file was kept in one table/office and it was not moved in time, it would not become a matter of discretion to be exercised as sufficiency has not been expl