JUDGMENT

1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:

22.05.2023

“It is seen from the record that the complainant is not appearing this matter since a very long time. After receiving this matter by transfer, office has issued notice to the parties including the Complainant. The said notice has not been received back to this commission. This clearly indicates that the notice sent to the Complainant is duly served. In this context reference is made to section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which reads as under:

27. Meaning of service by post. Where any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act authorizes or requires any document to be served by post, whether the expression 'serve' or either of the expressions 'give' or 'send' or any other expression is used, then, unless a different intention appears, the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre paying and posting by registered post, a letter containing the document, and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post."

Section 27 of the General Clauses provides that service is deemed to be effective, when the letter is properly addressed, pre-paid and posted by registered post, unless the contrary is proved. The notice was duly addressed, postage was pre-paid and the letter was sent by Speed Post, which is also another form of registered post offered by India Posts. The Complainant has filed the affidavit and the details indicating that the notice was duly sent to the OP. Hence in view of section 27 of the General Clause Act, 1897, the service was deemed to be effective. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Hari'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of D Vinod Shivappa vs Nanda Bellappa ((2006) 6 SCC 456), whereby while dealing with service of notice under section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with section 27 of the General Clauses Act 1897

"18. This Court noticed the position well settled in law that the notice refused to be accepted by the drawer can be presumed to have been served on him. In that case the notice was returned as "unclaimed and not as refused. The Court posed the question "Will there be any significant difference between the two so far as the presumption of service is concerned? Their Lordships referred to Section 27 of the General Clauses Act and observed that the principle incorporated therein could profitably be imported 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 sender, unless he proves that it was not really served and that he was not responsible for such non-senile This Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the drawer holding that where the notice is returned by the addressee as unclaimed such date of return to the sender would be the commencing date in reckoning the period of 15 days contemplated in clause (c) to the proviso of Section 138 of the Act. This would be without prejudice to the right of the drawer of the cheque to show that he had no knowledge that the notice was brought to his address. Since the appellant did not attempt to discharge the burden to rebut the aforesaid presumption, the appeal was dismissed by this Court. The aforesaid decision is significant for two reasons. Firstly, it was held that the principle Incorporated in Section 27 of the General Clauses Act would apply in a case where the sender dispatched the notice by post with the correct address written on it, but that would be without prejudice to the right of the drawer of the cheque to show that he had no knowledge that the notice was brought to his address."

(Emphasis supplied)

This judgment was also relied on by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of CC Alavi Haji vs Palapetty Muhammed ((2007) 6 SCC 555), whereby Hon'ble Supreme Court has also