State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. ... vs Alankit Ltd. on 21 January, 2026
RP/91/2019 DOD:21.01.2026
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. ALANKIT LIMITED
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
Date of Institution :01.11.2019
Date of Reserving the Order :07.01.2026
Date of Decision :21.01.2026
REVISION PETITION NO. 91/2019
IN THE MATTER OF
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
BAJAJ ALLIANZ HOUSE,
GE PLAZA, AIRPORT ROAD, YERAWADA,
PUNE, MAHARASHTRA-411006
....REVISIONIST
(Through Mr. Shighra Kumar, Advocate)
VERSUS
ALANKIT LIMITED,
R/O 2-5-208, ANARKALI COMPLEX,
JHANDEWALAN EXTNSION,
NEW DELHI-110055
....RESPONDENT
(Through Mr. Vaibhav Sethi,
Ms. Priya Pathania,
Ms. Roma Bedi,
Mr. Mohit Garg and
Mr. Anant Khajuria, Advocates
Mob: 9953637304 &
Email: [email protected])
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Present: None for the revisionist.
Mr. Devbrat Das, counsel for the respondent.
(Mob.9557105077)
DISMISSED Page 1 of 7
RP/91/2019 DOD:21.01.2026
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. ALANKIT LIMITED
PER: HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
1.The present revision petition has been preferred by the Revisionist impugning the order dated 28.02.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (South-II), Delhi in Consumer Complaint No.242/2018 titled "Alankit Ltd. vs. Bajaj Allianz General Ins. Co. Ltd.', whereby the right of the Revisionist to file written statement was closed on the ground that the reply was not filed within the statutory period.
2. It is noted that on the front page of the Revision Petition the date of the impugned order is mentioned as 03.04.2019, however, no order dated 03.04.2019 has been placed on record, nor is any such order shown to be under challenge.
3. Order dated 28.02.2019 has been reproduced as under for reference:
"28.02.2019 Pr. Ld. Counsel for the complainant along with AR. Mr. Dipesh Makan, PC for the OP.
Reply not file by the OP.
It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the OP that due to some personal difficulty the reply could not be filed. The reply has tobe filed within 45 days maximum. OP has not done so. The right of OP to file reply stands closed. Put up for Ex-Parte evidence as well as written arguments for 14/05/2019."
4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Forum, the Revisionist has approached this Commission stating that the learned District Forum passed the impugned order by adopting a hyper-technical view and wrongly closed the right of the Revisionist to file the Written Statement. It is submitted that the Revisionist had been regularly appearing before the Forum and the delay in filing the written statement occurred due to internal administrative and managerial approvals required within the DISMISSED Page 2 of 7 RP/91/2019 DOD:21.01.2026 BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. ALANKIT LIMITED company. The Revisionist had shown the valid and reasonable reasons for the delay, which were not properly considered by the District Forum. It is further submitted that it is well settled by several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the NCDRC that consumer fora should adopt a liberal approach in matters of limitation where sufficient cause is shown and that Written Statements filed beyond the prescribed period may be accepted in appropriate cases to serve the ends of justice. The delay was neither intentional nor deliberate. If the impugned order is not set aside, the Revisionist will suffer irreparable loss, whereas no prejudice would be caused to the Respondent if the Written Statement is taken on record. Pressing these contentions, the Revisionist has prayed that the impugned order dated 28.02.2019 be set aside and the revisionist be permitted to file its written statement.
5. The Respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 clearly provides a maximum period of 45 days for filing a Written Statement, which is mandatory. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that this time limit cannot be extended and must be strictly followed to ensure speedy disposal of consumer cases. In view of settled law and the facts of the case, the District Forum has rightly closed the right of the Opposite Party to file the Written Statement, and no interference by the State Commission is warranted.
6. To deal with the present issue, we deem it appropriate to refer to Section 13(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 reproduced hereunder as:
"Section 13(2)(a):
(a) 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 DISMISSED Page 3 of 7 RP/91/2019 DOD:21.01.2026 BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. ALANKIT LIMITED exceeding fifteen days as may be granted by the District Forum;"
7. A perusal of the above statutory provision reflects that the written statement is to be filed by the revisionist/opposite party within thirty days or such extended period not exceeding fifteen days as may be granted by the Consumer Forum. Thus, for getting the benefit of extended 15 days period, an application for extension of 15 days period has to be filed before the District Forum. However, in the present case, from the record we find that no such application for extension of time in filing the written statement has been filed by the revisionist /opposite party before the District Forum.
8. It is further appropriate to refer to the case of New India Assurance Vs Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd reported in (2020) 5 SCC 757, wherein the Apex Court held as under:-
"8. A bare reading of Section 13(2)(a) of the Act makes it clear that the copy of the complaint which is to be sent to the opposite party, is to be with the direction to give his version of (or response to) the case (or complaint) within a period of 30 days. It further provides that such period of 30 days can be extended by the District Forum, but not beyond 15 days.
13. On the contrary, sub Section (2)(a) of Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act provides for the opposite party to give his response 'within a period of 30 days or such extended period not exceeding 15 days as may be granted by the District Forum'. The intention of the legislature seems to be very clear that the opposite party would get the time of 30 days, and in addition another 15 days at the discretion of the Forum to file its response. No further discretion of granting time beyond 45 days is intended under the Act."
9. A perusal of the above settled law reflects that the written statement should be filed within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the complaint. Further, the time period of 30 days can DISMISSED Page 4 of 7 RP/91/2019 DOD:21.01.2026 BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. ALANKIT LIMITED be extended for a period of fifteen days at the discretion of the Commission and if the Commission is satisfied that the Applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the written statement within stipulated period of thirty days, then only the written statement shall be allowed to be filed within the extended period of fifteen days. Moreover, it is also clear from the abovementioned dicta that there is no discretion of granting the extension of time period beyond the period of forty-five days.
10. Reverting to the material on record, it is necessary to refer to the order dated 28.02.2019 passed by the District Forum. The said order clearly states that the reply was required to be filed within a maximum period of 45 days. Since this statutory period had already expired, the right to file Written Statement was closed.
11. The District Forum issued notice to the Opposite Party/Revisionist for appearance on 20.12.2018. Despite service of notice, the Opposite Party/Revisionist failed to appear on that date and appeared only on 21.12.2018, when a copy of complaint was supplied and it was directed to file its Written Statement within 30 days. The matter was thereafter adjourned to 28.02.2019. However, the Opposite Party failed to file the Written Statement within the prescribed period and did not provide any valid reason for the delay. The only explanation given before the District Forum on 28.02.2019 was that due to some personal difficulty, the reply could not be filed, which cannot be considered as a sufficient cause under the law. Moreover, no formal application for condonation of delay was filed.
12. It is admitted by the Revisionist that the copy of complaint was received on 21.12.2018. However, the Revisionist has failed to file the written statement within the statutory period and on 28.02.2019, i.e. on the 69th day from the date of receipt of the DISMISSED Page 5 of 7 RP/91/2019 DOD:21.01.2026 BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. ALANKIT LIMITED complaint, the Revisionist stated that due to some personal difficulty the reply could not be filed.
13. In this Revision Petition, it is submitted by the Revisionist that the delay in filing the written statement occurred due to internal administrative and managerial approvals required within the company
14. Further, it is well settled preposition of law that if the written statement is filed beyond the period of 30 days but with the extended period of 15 days, it is within the discretion of the adjudicating Court to condone the delay if sufficient reasons are provided by the Opposite Party. The written statement in this case was to be filed within 45 days from receiving the complaint. Beyond 45 days we do not have discretion to condone the delay on any ground.
15. The reasons for delay explained by the revisionist are not accepted as the revisionist has failed to produce or furnish any documents substantiating the averment.
16. The revisionist is granted liberty to argue their case before the District Forum as well as to file their written arguments on record before the District Commission.
17. Therefore, in light of the aforesaid discussion, we find no reason to interfere with the order dated 28.02.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (South-II), Delhi in Consumer Complaint No.242/2018.
18. Consequently, the Revision Petition No.91/2019 stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
19. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
20. A copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned District Commission for information and necessary action or compliance.
DISMISSED Page 6 of 7RP/91/2019 DOD:21.01.2026 BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. ALANKIT LIMITED
21. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
22. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT) PINKI MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Pronounced on 21.01.2026.
DISMISSED Page 7 of 7