ORDER

PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK

1. None for the petitioner. Petitioner has sent a letter stating that he is unable to attend the Court and the case be decided. Counsel for the respondent is present. Arguments heard. We have also perused the record. GEM TOURS & TRANVELS (ITIL) – The OP in the case was proceeded against ex-parte. The Complainant Naren Pravin Sanghvi filed a complaint before the District Forum that he had undertaken a grand Europe Tour for 21 Nights 22 days organized by the OP Tour Company. It was alleged that no proper service was given and excess amount was also demanded from them, which they were compelled to pay in the sum of Rs. 40,000/- on two occasions. The OP was proceeded against ex-parte. The OP Tour Company was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 40,000/- to the complainant with interest thereon @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint. Besides this direction to refund excess amount of Rs. 37,400/- to the complainant alongwith interes @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint. The Tour Company was also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- for mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant and costs of Rs. 3,000/-.

2. The appeal was preferred by the OP Tour Company before the First Appellate Court. It is surprising to note that the State Commission did not decide whether the OP Tour company was proceeded against exparte properly or otherwise. The order of the State Commission is silent on this point. The State Commission mentions:- “[3]xxxxxx It is also further contended that even if the consumer complaint proceeded ex-parte after filing the written version by the Tour Company still, even passing an ex-parte order requires evidence to be led by the Complainant as per provisions of Section-13(2)(b)(ii) of the Act and, therefore, the impugned order suffers this vice since it is passed without any evidence.”

3. The case was remanded without imposing any condition. The counsel for the respondent does not pick up a conflict with the fact that they were proceeded against ex-parte. He does not pick up a conflict with the question whether the respondent was served or not served. It appears that the respondent was proceeded against ex-parte illegally. However, the State Commission remanded the case without putting any condition.

4. Keeping in view, all the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby direct the respondent to comply with the order of the District Forum without prejudice. The money be deposited with the District Forum, which will not be disbursed till the final decision is taken by the District Forum. The said amount be deposited till

16.12.2013.

5. Parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 16.12.2013. District Forum is directed to expedite the case and decide the case within 45 days from 16.12.2013.

6. The case stands disposed of. Copy of this order be sent to the petitioner.

......................J J.M. MALIK PRESIDING MEMBER ......................

DR. S.M. KANTIKAR MEMBER