Mrs. Chandrakanta

v/s

HDFC Agro General Insurance Company Ltd.

03.03.2023                                                                          CC/125/22

1. Vide this application we shall decide the application filed by the OP to condone the delay of 140 days in filing the Written Statement in the present complaint.

2. The OP, in their application states that the OP received the complaint copy at their office on 21.05.22 as per the tracking report filed by the complainant.

3. However, the concerned officer who collected the copy did not report the same to the Legal team and thereafter left the office of the OP. Hence, the OP only came to know about the pendency of the present complaint on 14.10.22 after which the OP collected the complaint copy and filed the Written Statement on 22.11.22.  Thus the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate and the OP prays for the same to be condoned and Written Statement be taken on record.

4. A bare perusal of the Order sheets show that the AR of the complainant filed the proof of service along with requisite affidavit on 11.07.22, which clarifies that the OP received the copy of the complaint along with Notice issued by this Commission on 21.5.22, which is also corroborated by the OP in their application.

5. Section 38 (3) (a) of the CPA 2019 clarifies regarding the limitation to file the Reply in consumer complaint’s as below:

“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 by the District Commission.”

6. The same is further reiterated by the landmark judge passed by the Hon’ble supreme Court in the judgment of New India Assurance Company Limited vs Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited, (2020) 5 SSC 757 by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court decided on 04 March 2020 wherein it is clarified that the limitation period under the Consumer Protection Act could not be extended beyond the statutorily prescribed period of forty-five days.

7. Further, the reason the OP has mentioned that caused the delay in filing their reply is their internal matter and cannot be taken as a cogent reason to condone the delay especially after they were in the knowledge that a consumer complaint had been filed by the complainant through the process issued by this Commission, which was duly received by them way back in 21.05.2022 at their office as per the proof of service filed by the complainant on record. The same is also corroborated by the OP in their application.

8. At the very least, the OP could have checked the next date of hearing or details of the case as they were aware of the proceedings initiated at the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (South West).

9. Hence, the application to condone the delay to file the Reply after the Statutory Provision as given in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has elapsed is dismissed and the defence of the OP is closed henceforth.

10. Complainant to file the affidavit in evidence on 03.05.2023.

Copy of this Order be given as Dasti.

(R.C. YADAV)                                                                                                                      (DR. HARSHALI KAUR)                   MEMBER                                                                                                                                   MEMBER

(SONICA MEHROTRA)

(PRESIDENT)