Volkart Fleming Shipping And Services Ltd. vs M/S. Sangrur Agro Ltd.

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 31.7.2006 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Org. Complaint Case No. 42/2001 - M/s. Sangrur Agro Ltd. Vs. Fairmaces Shipping and Transport Services Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. by which, complaint was allowed and OPs were directed to make payment of Rs. 11,09,269/ - along with 9% p.a. interest and further awarded cost of Rs.10,000/ -.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/Respondent No. 1 filed complaint before State Commission against OP No. 1&2/Respondent No. 2&3 and OP NO. 3/petitioner. OP No. 3 was proceeded ex -parte on 16.10.2001 as notice sent through Regd. A.D. was not received back after a period of 30 days and none appeared for OP No. 3. OP Nos. 1 & 2 contested the complaint and ultimately by impugned order complaint was allowed. OP No. Also filed application for recall of ex -parte order which was dismissed by learned State Commission vide order dated 18.10.2007 and this appeal has been filed against both the orders. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that without proper service on the appellant, learned State Commission proceeded ex -parte and allowed complaint ex -parte by the impugned order which may be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent no. 1 submitted that as notices were sent on proper address of appellant and notices not returned back within period of 30 days and none appeared for the appellant, learned State Commission rightly proceeded ex -parte and passed impugned order; hence, appeal be dismissed.

COMPLAINANT filed complaint before State Commission on 31.5.2001 depicting nomenclature of OP No. 3 as ''''Volkat Fleming Shipping and Services Ltd. Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd., 505/507 Antriksh Bhawan, 22 K.G. Marg, New Delhi - 110 001 ''''. Apparently, nomenclature of OP No. 3 is not correct and as per application of OP No. 3 for recalling of order dated 16.10.2001, it appears that OP No. 3 was an agent for Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd. and in the nomenclature of OP No.3 unnecessarily name of Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd. has been inserted. Address of OP No.3 has been shown as 505/507 Antriksh Bhawan, 22 K.G. Marg, New Delhi - 110 001. Learned Counsel for the appellant has placed on record letter dated 30.11.2000 regarding handing over possession of Flat No. 505 and Flat No. 507. Handing over possession of Flat No. 505 bears signatures of landlord confirming receipt of possession, but letter regarding handing over possession of Flat No. 507 does not contain signatures of landlord, Gita Wadhawan. No doubt, this letter does not contain signatures of landlord regarding receipt of possession, but merely because letter does not contain signatures, it cannot be presumed that OP No. 3 had not vacated the premises on 30.11.2000. OP No. 3 in application for setting aside ex -parte order and ex -parte judgment clearly mentioned that possession of Flat No. 505/507 were handed over to the landlord on 30.11.2000 and shifted to 8 -F, Vandana Building, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi. In such circumstances, it can be presumed that notices sent by the State Commission to OP No. 3 were not sent at proper address.

LEARNED State Commission proceeded ex -parte only on the basis of presumption that notices sent by Regd. Post at correct address were not received back. As presumption regarding address of OP No.3 shown in the complaint has been rebutted by the appellant. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 has not placed any document on record to prove that on the date of issue of notice by the State Commission to the appellant, appellant was carrying -on -business at the address mentioned in the complaint. It would be appropriate to set aside ex -parte order and ex -parte judgment passed against appellant.

AS far as order dated 18.10.2007 is concerned, learned State Commission rightly declined to recall the order and appeal to this extent is liable to be dismissed. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that learned State Commission restored execution application dismissed in default on 18.10.2007, but dismissed application of the appellant for recalling ex -parte order and thus passed contradictory orders. At this stage, we are not concerned with the order dated 18.10.2007 restoring execution application, but impugned order dated 18.10.2007 refusing to recall ex -parte order is in accordance with law.

CONSEQUENTLY , appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed and impugned order dated 31.7.2006 passed by learned State Commission in Org. Complaint Case No. 42/2001 - M/s. Sangrur Agro Ltd. Vs. Fairmaces Shipping and Transport Services Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. is set aside to the extent of appellant and matter is remanded back to learned State Commission to take written statement of appellant on record and decide complaint afresh in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of being heard to the appellant. Appellant is directed to appear before learned State Commission on 21.4.2014 and further directed to file written statement on or before this date.