JUDGMENT

1. The Appellants/Opposite Parties have preferred the present Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for setting aside the impugned order dated 16.02.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission IX, East District, Delhi in Complaint case no. 221 of 2022.

2. Vide impugned order dated 16.02.2023, the District Commission has disposed off the application for condonation of delay in filing the written statement on behalf of the Appellants/Opposite Parties as dismissed in the following terms:

“This Commission is of the opinion that judgment relied upon by Counsel for complainant is well found. Even otherwise it does not appear to be sound proposition of law that application seeking condonation of delay thereby explaining reasons for such delay would be filed after an unlimited period or can be filed at any time by arguing that the Consumer Protection Act is not specific on this aspect. In the opinion of this Commission when a specific time frame has been provided in the CPA, 2019 w.r.t. filing written statement then such provision cannot be interpreted by stating that application seeking condonation of delay can be filed even on 76 days of filing the written statement. Such interpretation would make the provision of Consumer Protection Act 2019 Redundant. Therefore the contention of Counsel for OP1& OP2, that there is no provision under the Consumer Protection Act, as to when this application has to be filed, is not appropriate or legally sound & OPs do not have the liberty to file such application at any point of time. The Commission is also of the opinion that had there been any such intention of the legislature, it would not have given time frame to the OPs to file written statement within 30 days or in any case within 45 day after explaining the reasons or sufficient cause for such delay and if the proposition so argued by Ld. Counsel for OP1& OP2 would be accepted, the whole purpose of enactment would be frustrated and not only this, even the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Insurance Company(Supra) would also become futile. While interpreting the judgment and the law of interpretation, the logical interpretation which advances the purpose and intention of legislation had to be followed, so that the intention of the legislation be followed in letters & spirits. This contention of Ld. Counsel of OP1& OP2 is not well found in view of the reason explained herein above. Accordingly, it is held that OP1& OP2 had to file application seeking condonation of delay along with the written statement. Since it has not been filed along with the written statement and has been filed after 76th days of fling of written statement, it amount to no application in law seeking condonation of delay and accordingly the application is dismissed. Resultantly the written statement so filed by the OP1 & OP2 would not be read for the purpose of their defence.

Application disposed off accordingly.”

3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Commission, the Appellants have approached this Commission contending that the District Commission has failed to appreciate the fact that the copy of the compliant case no. 221/2022 has been received by the Appellants/Opposite Parties on 25.08.2022 and filed their written statement on 06.10.2022. Further, the application for condonation of delay was filed by the Appellants on 19.12.2022. Therefore, the delay in filing the written statement should be considered, however, the District Commission has failed to consider the same while disposing the said application. Pressing the aforesaid submission, the Appellants prayed for the setting aside of the order dated 16.02.2023 passed by the District Commission IX, East District, Delhi.

4. The Respondent/Complainant, on the other hand, denied all the allegations of the Appellants and submitted that there is no error in the impugned order as the District Commission has rightly dealt with the reasons mentio