COUNTRY COLONISERS PVT. LTD. vs SUNIL GOYAL & ANR.

Delay condoned.

This Appeal, by a Real Estate Developer, Opposite Party No.1 in the Complaint, is directed against the order dated 17.03.2016, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short "the State Commission") in MA No. 33 of 2016 in/and Consumer Complaint No. 7 of 2016. By the impugned order, drawing a presumption of service of notice on the Appellant, as the notice issued by the Registry had not been received back either served or unserved, the State Commission has proceeded ex-parte against the Appellant.

Upon notice, the Complainant as well as Opposite Party No.2, Respondents No. 1 and 2 respectively in this Appeal, are represented.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Complainant submits that in order to avoid further delay in the disposal of the Complaint, the impugned order may be set aside and an opportunity may be granted to the Appellant to file its Written Version, provided the Complainant is adequately compensated for the delay caused in the disposal of the Complainant, on account of the stay of the proceedings by this Commission.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, on the other hand, submits that since, as per the information gathered by the Appellant from the postal department, the report on the service of notice was itself not clear, as it only records "consignment details not found", the State Commission was not justified in taking ex-parte proceedings on the very first date of hearing.

Having perused the said service report by the Postal Department and in the light of the concession made by Counsel appearing for the Complainant, we set aside the impugned order to the extent it directs an ex-parte proceeding against the Appellant, and grant one opportunity to it to file its Written Version within 30 days from today, subject to its paying to the Complainant costs of 10,000/-. The costs shall be paid before the State Commission.

Since we have permitted the Appellant to file its Written Version, it will be open to the Complainant as also Opposite Party No.2 to file their respective rejoinders thereto, if considered necessary.

The parties/their Counsel are directed to appear before the State Commission on 02.11.2016, the date already fixed, for further proceedings in accordance with law.

Before parting with the case, we deem it necessary to observe that although Regulation 10(2) of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005, read with Section 28A(4) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, postulates presumption of service of notice on the expiry of 30 days, provided the same is issued as per the procedure prescribed in the Act, yet, in view of the recent decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (Civil Appeals No.10941-10942 of 2013), wherein it has been opined that the statutory period of 45 days, prescribed in the Act for filing the Written Version, cannot be extended under any circumstances, the Consumer Fora would be well advised to be extra careful in recording its satisfaction regarding the service of notice on the Opposite Party.

The Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms, with no order as to costs.