STERLING HOLIDAY RESORTS (I) LTD. vs SHAILENDRA GOEL

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 15.2.2000 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum-I), deciding the Complaint Case No. 208 of 1999, ''Shailendra Goel v. Sterling Holiday Resorts (India) Ltd. &Anr.'' ex-parte. THIS appeal has been filed by the opposite parties of the said complaint case, namely Sterling Holiday Resorts (India) Ltd. through its Managing Director, 154, Eldmas Road, Teynampet, Madras and Sterling Holiday Resorts (India) Ltd. through Manager, Meeting Point SCO.107-109, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant Shri Shailendra Goel who has put in appearance through his Counsel. WE have also gone through the record of the complaint case which was summoned from the District Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh. The learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the summons issued by the District Forum-I never reached the appellants and as a matter of fact, there was no service of summons of the complaint case on the appellants. The appellants thus were not in the know of the filing of the complaint case in the District Forum-I. The learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant urged that the District Forum-I held service of the summons on the basis of the processes issued to the appellants. He drew our attention to the order dated 16.8.1999 passed by the District Forum-I, which reads as under : "Present: Counsel for the complainant. No body has turned up on behalf of the opposite parties despite issued the summons, therefore, they proceed against ex-parte. Ex-parte evidence of the complainant adjourned to 5.10.1999. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- 16.8.1999 Member Member President"

He has also contended that the appellants should have approached the District Forum-I and moved an appropriate application seeking the setting aside of the ex-parte order passed by the District Forum-I, on the basis of their contention of non-service of summons on them.

WE have carefully gone through the record of the District Forum-I and we find that there are two carbon copies of the summons issued in April, 1999 to the two opposite parties of the complaint who are the appellants in this case. There is, however, no report on record regarding the fate of the service of the processes issued wide order dated 6.7.1999. The summons which were issued in April, 1999 were held to be not service by the District Forum-I vide order dated 6.7.1999 and summons were ordered to be issued again for 16.8.1999. The record does not contain the summons showing due service on the opposite parties of the complaint case/ appellants. Even on the order-sheet of the complaint case, there is no report of the office regarding the fate of the service of the summons issued to the appellants. There is no report of the office submitted separately, on record of the case. The learned Counsel for the respondent/ complainant was unable to show any material on record of the complaint case showing due service of summons on the appellants. Consequently, we find that the appellants were not served with the summons issued by the District Forum-I in the complaint case. WE are also of the considered view that the mere issuance of summons to the opposite parties/appellants is per-se not the service of summons on the appellants. Resultantly, the District Forum-I fell into error in proceeding ex-parte against the appellants. The appellants had evidently no knowledge of the filing of complaint case before the District Forum- I. The order of the District Forum-I is thus liable to be set aside. Coming to the arguments of the learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant regarding the appellants approaching the District Forum-I and seeking the setting aside of the ex- parte order, we may mention that the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 do not enable the District Forum or for that matter the State Commission to entertain any application praying for setting aside of an ex-parte reasoned order or to recall or review any reasoned order passed by the District Forum or the State Commission, as the case may be. The Hon''ble Supreme Court has in the case of Jyotsana Arvindkumar Shah & Ors. v. Bombay Hospital Trust, reported in III (1999) CPJ 1 (SC)=VII (1999) SLT 146=1999 (1) CPC 595 (SC), held that there is no provision under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which may enable the District Forum, State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, to recall or review and set aside an ex-parte reasoned order. The judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Jyotsana Arvindkumar Shah & Ors. (supra), was followed subsequently by the Hon''ble National Commission in the case of M/s. Scooter India Ltd. v. Mr. Pradeep Kumar, reported in III (1999) CPJ 77 (NC)=2000 (1) CPC 266 (NC). Therefore, we do not find any merit in the submission of the learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant that the appellants should have approached the District Forum and prayed for setting aside of an ex-parte reasoned order.

IN view of the foregoing discussion, we allow this appeal and set aside the order passed by the District Forum-I. Since the opposite parties of the complaint case have put in appearance inasmuch as they have filed this appeal, they alongwith complainant/respondent are directed to appear before the District Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh on 20.12.2000. The District Forum-I shall proceed to decide the case expeditiously keeping in view the fact that the complaint had been pending during this period. The District Forum-I shall permit the appellants/opposite parties to file written statement to the complaint case and shall thereafter proceed to decide the complaint case in accordance with law and expeditiously. Appeal allowed.