HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 20942 OF 2024 O R D E R : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka)

Challenge in this Writ Petition is to the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in FA.No.95 of 2020, dated 12.04.2024. By the said order, the National Commission while dismissing F.A.No.95 of 2020 had affirmed the order dated 13.12.2019 in C.C.No.227 of 2028 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Telangana.

2. Facts, in brief, are: the 3^rd respondent, aggrieved by the action of petitioners, who failed to keep up the promise to complete construction of building and deliver possession of flat, approached State Commission Disputes Redressal Commission alleging deficiency in service on the part of petitioners who are the opposite parties in C.C. No.227 of 2018. Vide order dated 13.12.2019, State Commission Disputes Redressal Commission partly allowed the said case holding petitioners jointly and severally liable, directed to refund Rs. 30 lakhs with interest at 12% per annum from the date of respective payments till realisation together with costs of Rs.10,000/- to the 3^rd respondent i.e. complainant in C.C.No.227 of 2018. The State Commission Disputes Redressal Commission Telangana held that notices sent by the Commission to opposite parties 2 and 3 were returned ‘unclaimed’ which amounts to refusal and notice is therefore, deemed to have been served. Though opposite party No.4 received notice, he failed to make his appearance while opposite party No.1 ie. the 1^st petitioner remained absent, despite causing publication in newspaper, all the opposite parties are set ex-parte.

Questioning the order dated 13.12.2019 of the State Commission, petitioners preferred F.A.No.95 of 2020 before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. Vide order impugned, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed the Appeal, affirming the order dated 13.12.2019. Having become unsuccessful before two Forums, petitioners have now approached this Court challenging the orders of both the original as well as the appellate authority.

3. Heard Sri. R.M.Vishwakarma, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Mukerjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of learned Deputy Solicitor General Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar for respondents and perused the record.

4. It is apposite to extract the specific observation of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the order impugned, at paras 5 to 7 in regard to service of notice since petitioners are challenging the said order on the ground of improper service of notice by the State Commission. They read as under:

“ 5. The appellant has contended that the State Commission has erroneously decided CC.No.227 of 2018 without appreciating there was no proof of service of notice upon the appellant and has erred in placing the appellant ex parte while deciding the matter. It is contended that the appellants were never served any notice and that the State Commission has itself recorded in its order dated 28.1.2019 that the notices were returned unserved with endorsement “left” in respect of appellant No.1 and “not claimed” in respect of appellant Nos.2 and 3. The State Commission has also proceeded ex parte against the appellant Nos.2 and 3. Thereafter on 1.4.2019 the appellant No.1 was directed to be served by way of substituted service/publication in the local news paper which was done in the news paper ‘Namasthe Telangana”. It is contended that the appellant had no knowledge of the complaint and therefore could not participate in the proceedings and were denied opportunity of being represented of the case. It is submitted that the impugned order came to their notice during the course of proceedings in another matter in CC No.52 of 2017 on 30.12.2019. It is therefore, prayed that the order of the State Commission in CC.No.227 of 2018 be set-aside with any other order or orders as may