IMPORTANT POINT
Subject to payment of cost, ex parte order can be set aside.

Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member—This first appeal has been filed under section 19 read with section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 11.07.2016, passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in Consumer Complaint No. C-545/15, filed by the present respondents/complainants. The said order reads as follows:-

“None for both the OPs. None appeared for them even on the last date despite service by RAD. The OPs are proceeded exparte. Complainant to file their evidence by affidavit within 8 weeks.

List on 23.12.16.”

2. Notice of the appeal was sent to the respondents, who appeared and contested the case.

3. During hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant/OP stated that notice of the consumer complaint sent by the State Commission had been duly received in their office on 05.02.2016 at 4:55 PM. However, due to inadvertent mistake on the part of some official in their office, who received the notice, the papers received were sent to the complainant only, on the same day and an entry to that effect was made in their record, a copy of which had been placed on record. The learned counsel pleaded that the appellants failed to appear before the State Commission on 15.02.2016, 11.07.2016 and thereafter. The learned counsel stated that they should be provided an opportunity to contest the complaint before the State Commission.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent stated, on the other hand, that as admitted by the appellants, the notice sent by the State Commission was duly received in their office. There was no occasion to send the said notice to the complainant by any stretch of imagination. The facts stated by the appellant showed that someone in their office did open the documents received from the State Commission, meaning thereby that the factum of notice was well within the knowledge of the officials of the appellant. The learned counsel further stated that the appellant had other cases also pending before the State Commission in which they were represented by their counsel. The case in hand was also within the knowledge of the counsel for the appellant, appearing in other cases, but he refused to handle the instant case.

5. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.

6. It is an admitted case of the appellants/OP that the notice sent by the State Commission was received in their branch office on 05.02.2016. However, some official of their branch office sent the same to the respondent No. 1, rather than sending the same to the legal department of the appellant. The explanation given by the appellant that their branch official sent the notice back to the complainant, does not seem to be convincing from any standard. For the failure of the appellant to appear before the State Commission, they were proceeded against exparte by that Commission. It is felt, however, in the interest of justice and for proper adjudication of the issue involved between the parties that an opportunity should be given to the appellants to defend their case before the State Commission. We deem it appropriate, therefore, that subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/- to each of the complainants within a period of two weeks from today, the exparte order against the said appellant/opposite party shall stand set aside and they will be provided opportunity to file the written version etc. by the State Commission, strictly within the time permissible under section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, i.e., 30 days or the extended period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the paper-book in question. This appeal is, therefore, allowed and the order passed by the State Commission is set aside, subject to the stipulation regarding the payment of cost as stated above.

Appeal allowed.