Anoop Aggarwal Alias Anoop Padia vs DALJIT SINGH

IN this appeal filed against the judgment and order dated 10.2.2005 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -II, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum), the two -fold submissions made by the learned Counsel Mr. S.K. Sood, Advocate are that the appellants were not duly served with the notice of the complaint case and in any case they did not receive the copy of the complaint No. 627 of 2004 as Shri Anoop Aggarwal @ Aoop Padia was lodged in Burail Jail in case F.I.R. No. 267/27.9.2004 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, I.P.C. and under Section 24 of Immigration Act.

IN the second place, it has been contended that the District Forum despite having knowledge of the lodging of Mr. Anoop Aggarwal in Burail Jail did not think it appropriate to provide a legal aid to him to contest the complaint case. Mr. S.K. Sood, Advocate also submitted that the appellants had received the copies of two other complaint cases bearing Nos. 625 and 626 both of 2004 and contested the same through Counsel and those cases, as stated at Bar by the learned Counsel for the respondent, have been reserved for judgment though Mr. S.K. Sood, Advocate claimed that his inquiries have revealed that both the complaint cases have been dismissed but at the same time, he stated that he has not received nor his client have received any formal communication of the judgment and order from the District Forum regarding the complaint being dismissed. So far as the first submission is concerned, a perusal of the record of the complaint case shows that Shri Anoop Aggarwal had been issued notice of the complaint case and the same was taken to the Burail Jail by the courier agency and delivered there to the Jail Authorities who in turn obtained signatures of Shri Anoop Aggarwal on the document called Proof of Delivery (for short hereinafter to be referred as P.O.D), which is on record. The notice had been issued for 10.2.2005. The complaint case was taken up on 10.2.2005 itself and after referring to the P.O.D, the District Forum proceeded ex parte against Shri Anoop Aggarwal and so far as the other appellant M/s. Solution Group is concerned, it was also held to be sufficiently served because M/s. Solution Group had been impleaded through its proprietor Shri Anoop Aggarwal @ Anoop Padia.

THE learned Counsel for the respondent Mr. Ravinder Singh, Advocate had put in appearance before the District Forum and intimated the fact of the evidence already led on the file by the complainant and there -upon the District Forum decided the complaint case by allowing the complaint partly and directed the appellants/OPs to refund the amount of Rs. 17,975 to the respondent/complainant with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of payment till refund along with Rs. 500 as costs of litigation.

A perusal of paragraph No. 5 of the impugned judgment will go to show that the evidence of the complainant led on affidavit was believed in the absence of any written version of the appellants who did not file the same despite service. There can be no dispute about the fact that Shri Anoop Aggarwal @ Anoop Padia was served with the notice of the complaint case vide P.O.D on record but the appearance could not be made because of Mr. Anoop Aggarwal being lodged in jail and there appears to be sufficient ground to uphold the contention of Mr. S.K. Sood, Advocate that the copy of the complaint case was not received in jail by Shri Anoop Aggarwal who had put in appearance in the other two complaint cases and had he received the copy of this complaint also, he would have put in appearance and contested this complaint case as well. It has further been brought to our notice that Shri Anoop Aggarwal was admitted to bail and he was finally released from jail custody on 15.1.2005 and still he, according to the contention of the respondents Counsel, did not appear before the District Forum on the date fixed. So far as this submission is concerned, it does not lead us either here or there because the date for which the notice had been sent was 10.2.2005 and it was on that very date that the case was taken up and finally decided by proceeding ex parte against the appellants. The appellants were thus prevented by sufficient cause from appearing before the District Forum in this complaint case and to file a written statement of their defence and to lead evidence in support of the defence plea.

AT this stage, Mr. Ravinder Singh, Advocate appearing for the respondent contended that in case an opportunity is allowed to the complainant to contest the complaint case, the respondent/complainant should be adequately compensated in terms of costs for the lapse on the part of the appellants in not putting appearance before the District Forum despite having served the notice. It has also been contended that the case be directed to be decided within the timeframe. Mr. S.K. Sood, Advocate has no objection to this proposition of the complaint case being decided within a timeframe and he has assured that he would cooperate with the District Forum and help the decision of the complaint case within a time fixed by this Commission.

RESULTANTLY , the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of the District Forum passed in complaint case No. 627 of 2004 are set aside. The complaint case is remanded to the District Forum -II, U.T., Chandigarh subject to payment of Rs. 300 as costs. The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum -II, U.T., Chandigarh on 16.8.2005. The District Forum shall decide the case expeditiously but not later than one month w.e.f. the date the written statement is filed by the OPs before the District Forum -II, U.T., Chandigarh. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Appeal allowed.