T.M. Hassan Pillai, President—The impugned order has been passed by the CDRF, Thrissure in OP. No. 744/2000. That forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondents 1 to 3 to pay Rs. 2.10,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum on that amount from 12.2.1999 and also to pay Rs. 250/- by way of cost to the complainant within one month from the date of receiving the copy of the order.

2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant was that in the Kuri conducted by the 1st opposite party partnership firm of which 2nd opposite party was the Managing Partner complainant’s father subscribed to MK-II Division ticket No. 30 in the name of complainant (minor Kiran). Opposite parties 3 to 7 were partners of the 1st opposite party firm and the total sale of the Kuri was Rs. 2,10,000/-. The monthly subscription payable was Rs. 7500/-. Kuri commenced on 12.9.1996 and terminated on 12.2.1999. In the auction conducted on 12.1.99 i.e. on the due date for payment of 29th instalment kuri was auctioned by the complainant (minor subscriber Kiran). The last instalment was paid by the subscriber on the due date i.e. on 12.2.1999. Inspite of demand made several times to pay the bid amount/ prize amount to the opposite parties that is Rs. 2,10,000/- no such payment was made till the date of filing of the complaint under some pretext or other. On 7.3.2000 lawyer notice was issued demanding payment of Rs. 2,10,000/- together with interest at 12% per annum on that amount and no reply was sent to that lawyer notice through the first opposite parties received that notice on 18.3.2000. Opposite parties 3 to 7 deliberately refused to receive notice and returned notice unclaimed. Complaint was filed by the minor represented by his father as next friend or guardian alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Compensation of Rs. 10,000/- was claimed for the mental agony suffered by the complainant. It was also alleged that the opposite parties resorted to unfair trade practice.

3. Resisting the claim made in the complaint the opposite parties 1 and 2 filed joint written version denying the alleged transaction and the case set up in the written version of the opposite parties 1 and 2 was that one Manikantan was the subscriber to the kuri Mk-II Division ticket No. 30 and he subscribed to the kuri in the name of one kiran. The kuri was auctioned by Manikantan after deducting fixed discount of Rs. 15,000/- and he received the entire amount of Rs. 2,10,000/- evidenced by receipts dated 12.2.99 and 1.3.99 respectively.

4. The 3rd opposite party filed a statement adopting the contentions of opposite parties 1 and 2. Notices issued to the opposite parties 4 to 7 were returned with the postal endorsement ‘unclaimed’. The well settled position in law is that notice refused to be accepted by a person can be presumed to have been served on him. Supreme Court had occasion to consider the question whether there will be any significant differences between unclaimed and refused so far as presumption of service is concerned. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court referred to Section 27 of the General Clauses Act and observed that principle incorporated therein could profitably be incorporated in a case where the sender had dispatched the notice by post with the correct address written on it. Then it can be deemed to have been served on the sendee unless he proves that it was not really served and that he was not responsible for such non service (see K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and another, 1992 AIR SCW 3809). So notices were deemed to have been served on opposite parties 4 to 7.

5. The sustainability of the order passed by the Forum below is under challenge in this appeal and the real dispute that is to be resolved by us is as to who subscribed to ticket No. 30 i.e. whether one Raghavan in the name of his minor son Kiran or one Manikantan in the name of one Kiran.

6. We have to point out at the outset itself that the