B.PADAMCHAND KOTHARI vs PILAKKATTIL KUNHI MOHAMMED ALIAS BAVA

FIRST opposite party in O.P. No. 95/2000 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Malappuram is the appellant. The only grievance of the appellant is that he was not actually served notice in District Forum but was set ex-parte and the impugned order was rendered. The impugned order states that the first opposite party inspite of service remained absent. We have called for the records of the District Forum. The cover returned by the post office has an endorsement which is not clear. What is to be noted is, there was no actual service in the sense that the first opposite party did not accept the summons for the cover, as indicated, was returned. The only question to be seen in whether the endorsement is "refused" or "unclaimed". The endorsement is not that clear to say that the same is "not known"; the same cannot be read as "unclaimed" also. The appellant has filed an affidavit stating that he was not in Madras and had to go to Rajasthan to attend his brother''s marriage. Having regard to the averment in the affidavit that during the relevant time the appellant was away, we are of the view, in the above circumstance, the appellant/first opposite party can be given a chance to contest the matter. In that view the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

IN the result the appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the District Forum which shall restore the complaint to file and give an opportunity to the first opposite party/appellant to file his version. Thereafter the District Forum shall dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Along with the copy of this order the office shall send back the records of the District Forum. The parties shall appear before the District Forum on 28.3.2001. Appeal allowed.