State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Dhl Logistics Pvt. Ltd. C/O. Santosh ... vs Surya Global Flexifilms Pvt.Ltd. on 15 December, 2025
FA/171/2025 D.O.D.: 15.12.2025
M/S DHL LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. VS. M/S SURYA GLOBAL FLEXIFILMS PVT. LTD. & ORS.
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 15.04.2025
Date of Hearing: 14.10.2025
Date of Decision: 15.12.2025
FIRST APPEAL NO.- 171/2025
IN THE MATTER OF
M/S DHL LOGISTICS PVT. LTD.,
201 A, SILVER UTOPIA, CARDINAL GRACIAS ROAD,
CHAKALA, ANDHERI (E), MUMBAI - 400099,
EMAIL: [email protected].
(Through: Mr. Amrit Singh, Advocate)
...Appellant
VERSUS
M/S SURYA GLOBAL FLEXIFILMS PVT. LTD.,
A-119/1, SECTOR - 29, YAMUNA EXPRESSWAY,
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
GAUTAM BUDDHA NAGAR, UTTAR PRADESH -203209.
EMAIL: [email protected].
(Through: Mr. N. Mahabir, Advocate)
M/S IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
IFFCO SADAN, C1 DISTT. CENTER, SAKET, NEW DELHI-110017.
EMAIL: [email protected];
[email protected].
(Through: Mr. Animesh Sinha, Advocate)
M/S MAJHA TRANSPORT LLP,
FLAT NO. 8, 1S FLOOR, A-8/C,
VISHWAKARMA COLONY, NEAR PULPAHALADPUR,
M.B. ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110044.
EMAIL: [email protected].
(Through: Mr. Garvit Byawat, Advocate)
...Respondents
DISMISSED PAGE 1 OF 11
FA/171/2025 D.O.D.: 15.12.2025
M/S DHL LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. VS. M/S SURYA GLOBAL FLEXIFILMS PVT. LTD. & ORS.
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. BIMLA KUMARI, MEMBER (FEMALE)
Present: Mr. Sahil Garg and Mr. Devanshi Rangi, Counsel for the
appellant (Email: [email protected])
Mr. Anish Verma and Mr. Hanit Sachdeva, Counsel for the
Respondent No.1 (Email: [email protected])
Ms. Shivang Singhal, Counsel for the Respondent No. 2
appeared through VC
Mr. Garvit Byawat, Counsel for the Respondent No.3 appeared
through VC).
PER: HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL,
PRESIDENT
JUDGMENT
1. The Appellant has preferred the present Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to set aside the impugned order dated 13.02.2025 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI, New Delhi in Complaint Case no. 358/2024 filed by Respondent no. 1/Complainant against the Appellant/Opposite Party no. 2. Vide impugned order dated 13.02.2025, the District Commission while deciding upon the delay in filing the written statement has held as follows:
"The present complaint has been filed under Sections 34 and 38 the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the Opposite Parties seeking the following reliefs:-
"1. The Complainant, therefore, prays that in view of the foregoing paragraphs it would be just and proper and further in the interest of justice that this Hon'ble Commission may be pleased to grant the following reliefs;
(a) To direct the Opposite Party No. 1 and 2, jointly and severally, to pay the Complainant the full repair costs amounting to EUR 407,621 (approx. INR 3,67,15,646), as paid to the manufacturer for repair of the machine, and DISMISSED PAGE 2 OF 11 FA/171/2025 D.O.D.: 15.12.2025 M/S DHL LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. VS. M/S SURYA GLOBAL FLEXIFILMS PVT. LTD. & ORS.
(b) To direct Opposite Party No. 1 and 2, jointly and severally to pay interest of Rs. 2, 78,96,611/- (Rupees Two Crore Seventy-Eight Lakh Ninety-Six Thousand Six Hundred Eleven only) to the Complainant for the period February 2023 to August 2024 paid on the loan amount during this period of delay caused due to repair and delivery and installation of the machine;
(c) To direct Opposite Party No. 1 and 2, jointly and severally to pay Rs. 50,17,95,000/- (Rupees Fifty Crore Seventeen Lakhs Ninety five Thousand only) towards lost profits to the Complaint for the period February 2023 to August 2024 paid on the loan amount during this period of delay caused due to repair and delivery and installation of the machine;
(d) To direct the Opposite Party No. 1, 2 and 3 to reimburse the costs incurred in reexporting the damaged consignment to Germany for repairs.
(e) Award compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,17,95,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Crore Seventeen Lakhs Ninety five Thousand only) to the Complainant for the business losses suffered due to the delay in setting up the BOPET Film Production Line caused by the damage to the machinery.
(f) To grant interest on the amounts claimed from the date of filing the claim until thedate of realization at a rate deemed fit by the Hon'ble Commission, and
(g) To direct the opposite parties to jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-as Litigation costs, since the complainant is constrained to incur expenses in litigation, and
(h) Such other and further relief as this Hon'ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the Complaint.
2. After preliminary hearing, notice of the complaint case was issued on 25th September, 2024 to the Opposite Parties, returnable on 26th November, 2024. Notice was ordered to be served by all modes including registered post/speed post.
3. On 26th November. 2024, counsel for Opposite Parties No. 1 and 3 (hereinafter referred as 'OP') appeared. However, DISMISSED PAGE 3 OF 11 FA/171/2025 D.O.D.: 15.12.2025 M/S DHL LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. VS. M/S SURYA GLOBAL FLEXIFILMS PVT. LTD. & ORS.
none appeared for OP No. 2. Counsel for the complainant filed affidavit of service with track consignment issued by the India Post. As per track consignment, OP No. 1 was served on 7th October, 2024; OP No. 2 on 5th October, 2024; and OP No. 3 on 7th October, 2024.
4. OP No. 1 filed its written statement on 8th November, 2024. As noted above, OP-1 was served on 7th October, 2024 and written statement was filed on 8th November, 2024. As per Section 38(3) (a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the OP No. 1 had to file WS within 30 days i.e. by fth November, 2024. The Written Statement was filed on the 32nd day. Neither any reply nor any protest was lodged by the learned counsel for the complainant to oppose the delay in filing written statement by OP No. 1. Since this Commission has power to condone the delay within the grace period of 15 days beyond 30 days, the Written Statement filed by OP-1 is taken on record by condoning two days delay in filing the same.
5. OP No. 2 was served on 5th October, 2024. OP No. 2 filed its Reply/Written Statement on 10th December, 2024. The OP-2 had to file reply on or before 5th November, 2024. There is delay of 35 days after excluding 30 days period.
6. As per provisions of Section 38(3)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the written statement has to be filed within 30 days from the date of service, which period can be extended by another 15 days, if this Commission finds any cogent reason to condone the delay. The relevant provision of the Act is reproduced below:-
"38(3) The District Commission shall, if the complaint the complaint admitted by it under sub-section (2) of section 36 relates to goods in respect of which the procedure specified in sub-section (2) cannot be followed, or if the complaint relates to services, -
(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 exceeding fifteen days as may be granted by the District Commission."
DISMISSED PAGE 4 OF 11 FA/171/2025 D.O.D.: 15.12.2025
M/S DHL LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. VS. M/S SURYA GLOBAL FLEXIFILMS PVT. LTD. & ORS.
7. In this case the reply/written statement was filed by OP-2 after 35 days, i.e. beyond 45 days, which cannot be condoned. Had the OP- 2 mentioned the fact of not having received the copy of complaint or documents or legible copy of the same on its first appearance, certainly it could have been considered but there is plea taken by the OP- 2. The law laid down by a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on the point of extension or condonation of delay in filing written statement is quite clear. Neither under the statute nor as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of "New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd." AIR 2020 SC -1267, this Commission can condone the delay in filing written statement by OP No. 2. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced below:
"Now reverting to the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, a conjoint reading of Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 13 would make the position absolutely clear that the commencing point of limitation of 30 days, under the aforesaid provisions, would be from the date of receipt of notice accompanied by a copy of the complaint, and not merely receipt of the notice, as the response has to be given, within the stipulated time, to the averments made in the complaint and unless a copy of the complaint is served on the opposite party, he would not be in a position to furnish its reply. Thus, mere service of notice, without service of the copy of the complaint, would not suffice and cannot be the commencing point of 30 days under the aforesaid Section of the Act. We may, however, clarify that the objection of not having received a copy of the complaint along with the notice should be raised on the first date itself and not thereafter, otherwise if permitted to be raised at any point later would defeat the very purpose of the Act, which is to provide simple and speedy redressal of consumer disputes."
DISMISSED PAGE 5 OF 11 FA/171/2025 D.O.D.: 15.12.2025
M/S DHL LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. VS. M/S SURYA GLOBAL FLEXIFILMS PVT. LTD. & ORS.
8. In view of the law laid down above by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and Section 38(3)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the application of OP-2 for condonation of delay in filing reply/written statement has no merit and the same is dismissed. The written statement filed by OP-2 be taken off the record. The defence of the OP- 2 stands struck off. The application is disposed off.
9. As regard OP No. 3, the OP-3 was served on 7th October, 2024. OP- 3 filed its written statement on 18th November, 2024. Though the reply/written statement was not filed within 30 days period but it was filed well before 15 days extended period. The delay in filing written statement by OP-3 is opposed by the learned counsel for the complainant. The delay in filing reply/written statement by OP-3 is condoned subject to payment of Rs. 3,000/- as cost to the complainant. The reply/written statement filed by OP-3 is taken on record. The application by OP-3 for condonation of delay in filing reply/written statement is allowed on the above terms.
10. Rejoinder to the reply/written statement of OP-1 and OP- 3 as also evidence have been filed by the complainant. The OP Nos. 1 and 3 may file their evidence within six weeks from today.
11. List the matter on 3rd April, 2025 for evidence by OP Nos. 1 and 3."
2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Commission, the Appellant/Opposite Party no. 2 has preferred the present Appeal submitting that the Appellant has received the notice of the complaint case on 07.10.2024, however, the incomplete copy of the complaint was annexed with the said notice, therefore, the Appellant vide Email dated 24.10.2024, requested the Respondent no. 1 for the complete set of documents in order to file the written statement before the District Commission. The Appellant further submitted that the copy of the complaint was sent through Email on 25.10.2024 and thereafter, the written statement was filed by the Appellant before the District Commission on 10.12.2024. Pressing the aforesaid, the DISMISSED PAGE 6 OF 11 FA/171/2025 D.O.D.: 15.12.2025 M/S DHL LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. VS. M/S SURYA GLOBAL FLEXIFILMS PVT. LTD. & ORS.
counsel for the Appellant submitted that the District Commission has erred in dismissing the application for seeking condonation of delay and prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the District Commission.
3. The Respondent no. 1, on the other hand, filed reply to the present Appeal wherein, he denied all the allegations of the Appellant and submitted that the complete set of documents was duly supplied to the Respondent no. 2 & 3 as well as the Appellant before the District Commission. The counsel for the Respondent no. 1 further submitted that there is no error in the impugned order as the copy of the complaint was duly sent to the Appellant 07.10.2024, however, the Appellant failed to file the written statement within the stipulated period and also failed to give any reasonable justification for the delay caused in filing the written statement before the District Commission.
4. Vide order dated 09.07.2025, the counsel for the Respondent no. 2 & 3 submitted that they do not wish to file the reply to the present Appeal.
5. The written submissions have been filed by the Appellant as well as by the Respondent no. 1, the same has been duly considered at the stage of final arguments by this Commission.
6. The Appellant has also relied upon the following judgments in support of his case:
a) Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, (2013) 12 SCC 649
b) Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mampee Timbers & Hardwares Pvt. Ltd. (2021) 3 SCC 673
c) Gaddi Param Hans Swami Hira Nand Ji v. Joginder Singh, 2017 SCC OnLine P&H 914
d) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Lid., (2020) 5 SCC 757 DISMISSED PAGE 7 OF 11 FA/171/2025 D.O.D.: 15.12.2025 M/S DHL LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. VS. M/S SURYA GLOBAL FLEXIFILMS PVT. LTD. & ORS.
e) Ricardo Constructions (P) Ltd. v. Ravi Kuckian, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2604
f) Prakash Corporates v. Dee Vee Projects Ltd. (2022) 5 SCC 112
g) Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, (1955) 1 SCC 323
h) Kailash v. Nanhku, (2005) 4 SCC 480
i) Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, (1954) 1 SCC 710.
7. The only question for consideration before us is whether the District Commission was right in holding that the Appellant/Opposite Party no. 2 has failed to file the written statement within stipulated time.
8. To resolve this issue, we deem it appropriate to refer to the Section 38(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which provides as under:
"Section 38(2): Where the complaint relates to any goods, the District Commission shall,-
(a) refer a copy of the admitted complaint, within twenty-one days from the date of its admission to the opposite party mentioned in the complaint 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 it;"
9. A perusal of the above statutory provision reflects that the written statement is to be filed by the Appellant/Opposite Party no. 2 within thirty days or such extended period not exceeding fifteen days as may be granted by the Consumer Commission. 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 DISMISSED PAGE 8 OF 11 FA/171/2025 D.O.D.: 15.12.2025 M/S DHL LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. VS. M/S SURYA GLOBAL FLEXIFILMS PVT. LTD. & ORS.
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."
10. 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 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.
11. In the present case, it is admitted fact that the copy of the complaint was received by the counsel for the Appellant/Opposite Party no. 1 at their Mumbai branch through Speed Post on 07.10.2024 and the written statement before the District Commission was filed on 10.12.2024 i.e. after a delay of DISMISSED PAGE 9 OF 11 FA/171/2025 D.O.D.: 15.12.2025 M/S DHL LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. VS. M/S SURYA GLOBAL FLEXIFILMS PVT. LTD. & ORS.
32 days (delay calculated after the stipulated period of 30 days) from the date of receiving of the copy of the complaint.
12. The Appellant has contended that Respondent No. 1 forwarded an incomplete copy of the complaint. However, upon perusal the record, it is observed that the Appellant first raised this issue on 24.10.2024. The Appellant has not provided any satisfactory explanation for the delay in apprising Respondent No. 1 regarding the alleged incomplete copy received before the District Commission during the period starting from 08.10.2024 till 24.10.2024. Furthermore, it is noted that Respondent No. 2/Opposite Party No. 1 and Respondent No. 3/Opposite Party No. 3 have duly filed their written statements before the District Commission upon receiving the copy of the complaint along with the notice on the same date, i.e., 07.10.2024.
13. Additionally, it is observed that the Appellant received the complete set of documents on 25.10.2024, pursuant to their request made on 24.10.2024. Despite having obtained the complete set of complaint on 25.10.2024, the written statement on behalf of the Appellant was filed only on 10.12.2024 before the District Commission. Since, even if we consider the stipulated time period of filing the written statement starting from 25.10.2024, the Appellant has failed to file the same within the stipulated period of 30 days. Therefore, we find that the Appellant has followed a lackadaisical approach in collecting the complete copy of the complaint from the District Commission as well as failed to file the written statement before the District Commission within the stipulated period even after receiving the copy of complaint through Email on 25.10.2024. More so, no convincing or sufficient reason has been submitted by the Appellant in the application for condonation of delay, filed by it before the District Commission.
14. Resultantly, in view of the abovementioned dicta, we find no infirmity in the order dated 13.02.2025, passed by the District Consumer Disputes DISMISSED PAGE 10 OF 11 FA/171/2025 D.O.D.: 15.12.2025 M/S DHL LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. VS. M/S SURYA GLOBAL FLEXIFILMS PVT. LTD. & ORS.
Redressal Commission-VI, (New Delhi), 'M' Block, 1st Floor, Vikas Bhawan, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002.
15. Accordingly, the present Appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
16. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
17. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
18. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (BIMLA KUMARI) MEMBER (FEMALE) Pronounced On:
15.12.2025 LR-AJ DISMISSED PAGE 11 OF 11