SHARAD RAMCHANDRA PURANIK vs KISTU DIYOG FERNANDES

RESPONDENT Mr. Kistu Diyog Fernandes present in person in response to our notice.

WE are proceeding to dispose of this appeal on hearing the learned Advocate for the appellant and the respondent who is appearing in person, as also on perusal of the material available in the appeal paper book. For brevity''s sake, appellant hereinafter is referred to as "O.P." and respondent as "Complainant". O.P. has challenged the order dated 31.12.2001 passed by the District Forum, Sindhudurg, holding him deficient in not executing the repair work to the house of the complainant, which was entrusted to him under Agreement, copy whereof is also in the appeal paper book.

It is noticed that the complainant had given the work of execution of repair work of his house to the O.P. and also paid the consideration thereof from time to time.

COMPLAINANT from time to time paid to the O.P. diverse amounts aggregating to Rs. 2,65,000/- in respect of which the O.P. has also issued receipts, which also forms part of the appeal paper book in the matter herein. As the work was not executed satisfactorily and completely, that the correspondence came to be exchanged between the parties. Even the notice through Advocate was also issued. As nothing turned out, that the complaint was filed.

THE District Forum after admission of the complaint issued its process to the O.P. on 11 of 2001 by transmitting it through post under the registered A.D. However, the same returned unserved with postal endorsement "Refused". THE envelope and receipt, etc. were marked as Exhibits 5 and 6 by the District Forum in the record and proceeding to that effect. Since there was no appearance or written statement filed, that the District Forum on examination of the case and claim of the complainant and on scrutiny of the evidence made available, concluded the O.P. being deficient in rendering services and so holding, has ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- being the amount extra received from the complainant for repair work, for which no repair work was carried out and sum of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation and Rs. 500/- as cost. As stated, O.P. has challenged the said findings. Across, the learned Advocate submitted that award being ex parte, he should be given chance to defend the dispute. It is however to be stated that as required under Section 13 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, O.P. was provided an opportunity. In this, process was transmitted to him through post by Registered A.D., which was returned with the postal endorsement "Refused" and District Forum has recorded these facts in paragaraph Nos. 3 and 4 of its impugned judgment.

IT is to be stated that the service with postal endorsement "Refused" is held to be a good mode of service and valid service in law. Furthermore, notices were transmitted to the O.P. at his address, which is ordinary place of his residence, which fact is not disputed. That being so, presumption as envisaged in Section 114(g) of Evidence Act would apply and District Forum, therefore, held that mode of service adopted was valid one.

IT would thus be noticed that it is the O.P. who did not respond to the notice and he has refused to receive it and, therefore, forfeited his right provided by the statute. That being so, we do not find any merits and we proceed to dismiss the same. Appeal dismissed.