ORDER

Counsel for the appellants’ no.1 to 3 submits that the only reason for coming before this Commission is that the State Commission did not permit them to file WS in C.C. No.247 of 2018 filed before the State Commission.

The impugned order dated 20.07.2018 of the State Commission is as under:-

“Present:

For the complainants : None For OP No.3 : Ex-parte For OP No.4 : Sh. Manmohan, Advocate As per report of the Registry, notice was sent to Op No.1 on 08.06.2018.

Neither RC nor AD sent to OP No.1 received back. Period of 30 days has been expired. Presumed to have been received by it. None is present on its behalf.

Hence, OP No.1 is proceeded against ex-parte.

Correct address of OP No.2 not filed by the counsel for the complainants.

On furnishing correct address of OP No.2, fresh notices be issued to OP No.2 for

11.09.2018.

Sh. Manmohan, Advocate has filed memo of appearance on behalf of OP No.4 and seeks time to file written reply along with power of attorney. Allowed. Be filed in the Registry within a period of 15 days with an advance copy to the counsel for the complainants.

Counsel for the appellants submits that they had filed M.A. No.2064 of 2018 seeking permission to join proceeding and to file WS. However, the State Commission vide its order dated 11.09.2018 while allowing them to join the proceeding, did not specifically allow them to file the WS.

We have considered this matter very carefully. It is clear from the order dated

20.07.2018 of the State Commission that on the ground that notice was sent to the OP No.1 on 08.06.2018 and neither RC nor AD was received back by the Registry, it was presumed that the notice must have been received by the OP No.1. As period of 30 days thereafter had expired and since OP No.1 did not appear before the State Commission, it decided to proceed ex-parte.

We feel that one more opportunity ought to have been granted to the OP No.1 to appear before the State Commission and file their WS since neither RC nor AD card had been received. Such an outcome can also mean notice not served at all. In the interest of justice, one more notice could have been served, by asking the complainants to furnish address and also directing dasti notice.

Accordingly, we allow this appeal and permit the appellants to file WS before the State Commission within four weeks subject to payment of cost of Rs.20,000/- to be paid by the appellants directly to the respondent no.1/complainant by way of demand draft. The State Commission may accept the WS and thereafter proceed with the complaint for final disposal.

List the matter on the date fixed before the State Commission.

......................

ANUP K THAKUR PRESIDING MEMBER ......................

C. VISWANATH MEMBER