State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Honda Cars India Limited vs Mrs. Neelam Khanna & Anr on 10 March, 2026
RP/67/2023 HONDA CARS INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. MRS. NEELAM KHANNA & ANR. D.O.D.: 10.03.2026
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 30.10.2023
Date of hearing: 28.01.2026
Date of Decision: 10.03.2026
REVISION PETITION NO. - 67/2023
IN THE MATTER OF
HONDA CARS INDIA LTD.,
THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE,
REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
PLOT NO. A-1, SECTOR 40/41,
SURAJPUR-KASNA ROAD,
GREATER NOIDA IDA,
DISTRICT GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR (UP)-201306.
(Through: Mr. Ashish Chauhan &
Ms. Sonal Chauhan, Advocates)
...Revisionist
VERSUS
1. MRS. NEELAM KHANNA,
W/O MR. RAVINDRA KHANNA,
R/O C-5/86-87, SECTOR-6,
ROHINI, DELHI-110085.
THROUGH HER HUSBAND/ATTORNEY:
MR. RAVINDRA KHANNA.
(Through: Mr. Ravindra Khanna, Advocate)
2. M/S SUGOI MOTORS PVT. LTD.,
(RING ROAD HONDA)
A-2, UDYOG NAGAR INDUSTRIAL AREA,
ROHTAK ROAD, NEAR PEERAGARHI CHOWK,
NEW DELHI-110041.
(Through: Mr. Chandan Malik, Advocate)
...Respondents
DISMISSED PAGE 1 OF 8
RP/67/2023 HONDA CARS INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. MRS. NEELAM KHANNA & ANR. D.O.D.: 10.03.2026
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. BIMLA KUMARI, MEMBER (FEMALE)
Present: Mr. Ashish Chauhan and Mr. Aditya Gupta, counsel for the Revisionist.
Mr. Bharat Bhushan Dhingra, counsel for the Respondent no. 1.
Mr. Chandan Malik, counsel for the Respondent no. 2.
PER: HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT
JUDGMENT
1. The Revisionist has preferred the present Revision Petition under Section 47 (1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to set aside the impugned order dated 17.08.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission- III, West, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, C-150-151, Community Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058 in Complaint Case No. 329/2022 filed by Respondent no. 1/ Complainant against the Revisionist/ Opposite Party no. 2 and Respondent no. 2/ Opposite Party no. 1. Vide impugned order dated 17.08.2023, the District Commission while deciding upon the application for striking off the right of defence of the Revisionist and has held as under:
"1. Vide order dated 31.8.2022, after hearing arguments for admission of the complaint, the same was admitted to hearing and notice was directed to be issued to OPs 1&2 for 9th December, 2022. On 9th December, 2022, counsel for the complainant filed track report of the notice served on the OPs, according to which OPs 1 & 2 were served on 23.9.2022 and 29.9.2022 respectively. Thereafter, as per order dated 25.3.2023, OP No.1 filed its written statement on 03.03.2023. Thereafter counsel for complainant filed application for striking down the defence of OP No.1 as the same was not filed within the statutory period of 45 days. Copy of the said application was directed to be supplied to counsel for OP No.1 and notice was again directed to be issued to OP No.2 for 17.8.2023.
DISMISSED PAGE 2 OF 8 RP/67/2023 HONDA CARS INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. MRS. NEELAM KHANNA & ANR. D.O.D.: 10.03.2026
2. In the order dated 17.8.2023, it is noted that the written statement by OP No.2 was filed on. 18.5.2023 vide diary No.718 and by OP No.1 on 01.3.2023 vide diary No.331. Though in the application filed by the complainant, prayer is made to reject the written statement of OP No.2 only as copy of the same was suppled to complainant only on 17.5.2023 but we find that even the written statement of OP No.1 has been fled beyond the statutory period of 45 days (30+15 days grace period).
3. To appreciate the rival contentions of parties, It may be noted that OP No.1 in its reply to the application of complainant for striking off the defence of OP No.2, has submitted that notice for appearance in this Commission on 09.12.2022 was received by it. However, since some of the annexures of the complaint (pages 36 to 38) were missing, a counsel on behalf of OP No.1 was instructed to appear on the said date and seek those papers in order to file written statement. However, due to frequent change of counsel on behalf of OP No.1 in between, the written statement could finally be filed on 03.03.2023 with advance copy to the complainant on 01.03.2023. Presuming that the complete set of paper book was received by OP No.1 on 09.12.2022 i.e, the next date of hearing fixed, though admittedly the notice as per track report was received by OP No.1 on 23.9.2022, the written statement was to be filed within maximum 45 days i.e. by 24.1.2023 in terms of Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance co. Ltd. V. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (P) Ltd, (2020) 5 SCC 757,. Admittedly, as per reply filed by OP No.1 to the application of complainant, the written statement was filed on 01/03.3.2023, which is much beyond the statutory period of 45 days within which the same was to be filed.
4. As regards OP No.2, the first notice issued by this Commission on 31.8.2022 was served upon OP No.2 on 29.9.2022 as per the track report so filed by the complainant. Further the fresh notice issued to OP No.2 on 25.3.2022, as per the track report filed on record, was delivered to it on 25.4.2023. Since as per order dated 09.12.2022, the notice was served on OP No.2 on 29.9.2022, there was no necessity or occasion for DISMISSED PAGE 3 OF 8 RP/67/2023 HONDA CARS INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. MRS. NEELAM KHANNA & ANR. D.O.D.: 10.03.2026 issuing fresh notice to OP No.2 on 25.3.2023. The fresh notice appears to have been issued to OP NO.2 on 25.3.2023 due to oversight/erroneously. Admittedly in terms of first service of notice on OP No.2 on 29.9.2022, its written statement was filed on record on 17.5.2023 which is also beyond the statutory period of 45 days fixed for the purpose.
5. In this regard counsel for the complainant relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Antriksh Developers an Promoters Private Limited & An VS. Kutumb Welfare Society(Regd.) & Anr, 2022 Livelaw(SC) 930, wherein it was held as under:
"It is not in dispute that the written statement was filed beyond the period of 45 days. The period of limitation to file is 30 days which can be condoned upto 15 days only.
As observed and held by this Court in the case of New India Assurance co. Ltd. V. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (P) Ltd, (2020) 5 SCC 757, the Consumer Commission has no jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond the prescribed period mentioned in the Statute.
In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has committed any error in refusing to condone the delay which was beyond 45 days.
The present Special Leave Petition stands dismissed."
Keeping in view the above verdict of Hon'ble Apex Court, for the facts recorded above, the written statements filed by OP 1 & 2 cannot be taken into consideration as having been filed beyond the statutory period of 45 days, therefore, the defence of OPs 1 & 2 is struck off."
2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Commission the Revisionist/Opposite Party No. 2 has preferred the present Revision Petition contending that the District Commission has erred in striking off the defence of the Revisionist as notice was not served upon the address of the Revisionist on 29.09.2023 as alleged by the Respondent no. 1 before the District Commission.
DISMISSED PAGE 4 OF 8 RP/67/2023 HONDA CARS INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. MRS. NEELAM KHANNA & ANR. D.O.D.: 10.03.2026
The Revisionist further submitted that the notice was served upon the address of the Revisionist on 25.04.2023, therefore, calculating the period of limitation from 26.04.2023, the written statement has been duly filed by the Revisionist within the statutory period. Pressing the aforesaid, counsel for the Revisionist prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the District Commission.
3. The Respondent no. 1 has filed his reply, denied all the submissions of the Revisionist and submitted that there is no error in the impugned order as the notice along with the copy of the complaint was served upon the Revisionist through Speed Post and the same was delivered upon the address of the Revisionist on 29.09.2022. Pressing the aforesaid, the Respondent no. 1 prayed for the dismissal of the present Revision Petition.
4. The Written Arguments have been filed by the Revisionist, wherein the contents of the Revision Petition have been reiterated and the same have been considered at the stage of final Arguments.
5. The Written Arguments have been filed by the Respondent no. 1 wherein the contents of Reply to the Revision Petition have been reiterated and the same have been considered at the stage of final Arguments.
6. We have perused the material available on record.
7. The main question for consideration before us is whether the District Commission erred in striking off the right of defence of the Revisionist/Opposite Party no. 2.
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 DISMISSED PAGE 5 OF 8 RP/67/2023 HONDA CARS INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. MRS. NEELAM KHANNA & ANR. D.O.D.: 10.03.2026 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 Revisionist/Opposite Party 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 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.
11. In the present case, it is noted that the copy of the complaint along with the notice of the Complaint was served by the Respondent no. 1/Complainant upon DISMISSED PAGE 6 OF 8 RP/67/2023 HONDA CARS INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. MRS. NEELAM KHANNA & ANR. D.O.D.: 10.03.2026 the Revisionist and the Respondent no. 2 and the same was admittedly served upon the Revisionist on 29.09.2022 and upon the Respondent no. 2/Opposite Party No. 1 on 23.09.2022 as confirmed from the tracking report filed by the Respondent no. 1/Complainant before the District Commission.
12. Further, the Revisionist herein submitted that the notice of the complaint was directed to be issued upon the Revisionist and the Respondent no. 2 and the same was received by the Revisionist on 25.04.2023. However, perusal of the record reflects that the District Commission in its impugned order dated 17.08.2023 has acknowledged that the notice which was directed to be issued upon the Revisionist as well as upon the Respondent no. 2 was an oversight and error on the part of the District Commission as the notice was already served upon the Revisionist and the Respondent no. 2 on 23.09.2022 and 29.09.2022. Additionally, it is clear from the record that the written statement before the District Commission was filed by the Revisionist on 18.05.2023 i.e. after a delay of around 203 days approximately (delay calculated after the stipulated period of 30 days) from the date of receiving of the copy of the complaint. Therefore, in the present case, the written statement was filed beyond the stipulated period of 30 days as well as beyond the extended period of 15 days as prescribed in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
13. Moreover, in according to the abovementioned dicta, the District Commission has no discretion to extend the period of limitation for filing the written statement beyond the period of 45 days from the date of receiving the copy of complaint along with notice.
14. In view of the forgoing, we are in agreement with the reasons given by the District Commission and fail to find any cause or reason to reverse the findings of the District Commission. Consequently, we uphold the order dated 17.08.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission- III, (West), C-150-151, Community Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058.
DISMISSED PAGE 7 OF 8 RP/67/2023 HONDA CARS INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. MRS. NEELAM KHANNA & ANR. D.O.D.: 10.03.2026
15. Consequently, the present Revision Petition 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:
10.03.2026 LR-AJ DISMISSED PAGE 8 OF 8