Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 4978
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, President, Bimla Kumari, Member
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
ROOP JWELLERS – Respondent
REVISION PETITION NO. – 43/2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Kanwar Kochhar
For the Respondents: Aditya Sharma
Additional evidence, specifically affidavits of non-parties, cannot be introduced at a belated stage without a sufficient explanation for the delay, as mere relevance to the dispute does not override the requirement for due diligence in filing evidence at the prescribed stage.
Headnote:The Revisionist filed a petition under Section 47(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, challenging an order of the District Commission which dismissed an application to file additional evidence by way of affidavits from a Surveyor and Loss Assessor. The District Commission had ruled that the Revisionist failed to provide a cognate reason for the belated filing of this evidence. The State Commission found that the Revisionist had already filed its evidence and failed to explain why these specific affidavits were not produced at the appropriate stage. The primary issue was whether the District Commission was justified in dismissing the application for additional evidence. The court reasoned that since the Surveyor and Loss Assessor were not parties to the proceedings, there was no mandate for the Commission to independently examine them. It was held that if a party intends to rely on the testimony of non-parties, it is incumbent upon them to place such evidence on record during the prescribed stage; mere relevance cannot justify a belated introduction without sufficient explanation. Accordingly, the present Revision Petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to the dismissal of an application for filing additional evidence by a surveyor. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. review of the procedural timeline and the status of the witnesses as non-parties. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. requirement of due diligence and sufficient explanation for the belated introduction of evidence. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. confirmation of the lower commission's order and dismissal of the revision petition. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT
JUDGMENT
1. The Revisionist/Opposite Party has preferred the present Revision Petition under Section 47(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 seeking revision of the impugned order dated 29.01.2026 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VIII, Central, Govt of NCT of Delhi, Kashmere Gate, Delhi in Consumer Complaint No. 74/2023.
2. Vide impugned order dated 29.01.2026, the District Commission dismissed the Application filed on behalf of the Revisionist, seeking permission to file Additional Evidence on record in the following terms:
“1. This application has been filed by the OP seeking permission to file additional affidavit of Ms. Alka Gupta & Associates, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, who was deputed by the OP to assess the loss in this case. In the application, the OP has not given any cognate reason to for filing the additional affidavit. It has also not stated in the application that why this additional evidence was not filed at earlier stage. The Complainant, in its reply to the said application, has objected to filing of this additional affidavit on the ground that OP is trying to delay the case.
2. We have heard the arguments of both the parties. It is settled position that a party may be permitted to file additional document, if the said document was not available at the time of filing the complaint. In this context, reliance is placed judgment of the full bench of Hon’ble National Commission in the matter of Universal Sompo GIC vs Shabbir Abdul Hussain [RP No. 1533/2019, decided on 21.01.2020]. In this matter, while answering a reference, Hon’ble National Commission has held that either of the parties are entitled to produce additional evidence in the Appeal and/or Revision Petition at any stage if it establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence such evidence was not in its knowledge and could not, even after exercise of due diligence, be produced by it at the time when the Consumer Complaint was decided. The said principal applies in the case in hand.
3. There is no averment in the application filed by the OP that why this affidavit was not filed earlier and how the averments made in this new affidavit are new information which was not available to the OP earlier.
Hence, for the reasons explained hereinabove, we do not find any reason to allow the application filed by the OP. Accordingly the application is dismissed. The additional evidence of Ms. Alka Gupta & Associates shall not be taken on record.
In view of the above, this application is disposed of.
CC No.: 74/2023
5. List the matter for final arguments on 12.03.2026.”
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of District Commission, the Revisionist has approached this Commission contending that the District Commission has erred in dismissing the application of the Revisionist whereby seeking permission to place on record additional evidence by way of affidavit of the Surveyor and Loss Assessor which is necessary for the adjudication of the present case on merits. The counsel for the Revisionist further submitted that the Revisionist has filed his Evidence by way of Affidavit before the District Commission and sought permission to file Evidence by way of Affidavit of the Surveyor and the Loss Assessor which has been erroneously considered as the Application seeking additional documents at the later stage. Pressing the aforesaid, Revisionist prayed for setting aside the order dated 29.01.2026 pa
