J.M. Malik, Presiding Member—The main controversy revolves round the fact whether OP Nos. 1 & 2 should be given an opportunity to file the written statement after the expiry of more than 489 days from their service. Counsel for the petitioner present. The order dated 03.10.2012 passed by the State Commission runs as follows:-

“Heard Mr. Prakash Kadam, Advocate for the complainant. None present for the opponents. Their postal acknowledgements show that notices of the opponents were received on their behalf by one Mr.Sadam. Under the circumstance, we direct the complainant to file Service Affidavit under Section 28-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Matter stands adjourned to 06/12/2012”.

2. The order dated 06.12.2012 passed by the State Commission runs as follows:-

“06.12.2012:

Mr. P.B. Kadam, Advocate for the Complainant. Complainant - Smt.Naila A. Saudagar files service affidavit as per Provisions of Section 28-A of the Consumer Protection Act in respect of Opponent Nos.1 to 4. Mr. Faiyaz Shaikh, Opponent No.4 present. In the circumstances, complaint to proceed in the absence of other partners of the Opponent firm M/s.Raj Construction, viz.Opponent No.2 - Mrs.Asma Begum sh