State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt.Anshu vs Neelesh K. Narvaria on 22 June, 2021
M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)
FA No.927 / 2014.
Smt. Anshu Mishra & Anr. .... APPELLANTS.
Versus
Neelesh Kumar Narwariya,
Balaji Nagar, Ater Road,
Bhind (M.P.). .... RESPONDENT.
As per Shri Justice Shantanu Kemkar, (oral) :
Date of ORDER
Order
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING
22.6.2021 Shri V. K. Saxena, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Amit Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent. Heard.
2. This appeal arises out of the order dated 30.5.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhind (for short the "District Commission") in CC No.31/2013 whereby the District Commission after proceeding ex-parte against the appellants, passed the impugned order in favour of the respondent / complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants has pointed out that the District Commission has wrongly proceeded ex-parte against the appellants / opposite
- 2- parties. He submits that recording of the fact in the order sheet dated 27.2.2013 that the appellants / opposite parties no.1 and 2 have been served by 'registered post' is erroneous as the said notice was served on the appellants / opposite parties by process server and not by registered post. He also pointed out that the notice was actually issued by the District Commission on 29.1.2013 and served on the appellants / opposite parties on 6.2.2013 and before lapse of 30 days on 27.2.2013 the ex-parte proceedings were drawn in violation of Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the "Act") and the matter was fixed for recording of the evidence of the complainant. He therefore submits that the impugned order of the District Commission is liable to be set-aside.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent / complainant has supported the impugned order and the proceedings.
5. We have gone through the record and the said proceedings as also the date of issuance of the notice of the District Commission and we find that there is substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the appellants.
6. As is revealed from the record the complaint was filed on 23.1.2013. On that date the notice was ordered to be issued to the appellants / opposite parties. The notice was actually issued on 29.1.2013 which was served by process server on the appellants / opposite parties on 6.2.2013. Before
- 3- completion of 30 days, on 27.2.2013 itself the District Commission has proceeded ex-parte against the appellants / opposite parties depriving the appellants / opposite parties to appear and file reply. Thus, there is clear violation of the provisions contained in the Act.
7. Thus, in our considered view the impugned order is liable to be set- aside. The same is accordingly set-aside. The appeal is allowed. The matter is remanded to the District Commission for fresh decision in accordance with law.
8. The appellants / opposite parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 9.7.2021. Learned counsel for the appellants / opposite parties undertakes to file reply of the complaint before the District Commission within 30 days from the date of appearance.
9. The District Commission to issue notice to the complainant if he remained absent on 9.7.2021.
(Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar) (S. S. Bansal)
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Phadke