This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner, Pegion Stove Kraft India Pvt. Ltd. against the order dated 29.09.2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in Appeal No.1046 of 2014.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1/complainant filed complaint against the opposite parties including the petitioner.  The petitioner was proceeded ex-parte before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad, (in short ‘the District Forum’) and the District Forum passed the following order on 30.06.2014:-

“(A)  The complainant’s complaint is partly allowed.

(B) The order against the respondent no.1 is passed that, the respondent no.1 to pay Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) for damages to the complainant together with 9% interest p.a. from 04/9/13 filing of complaint and the respondent no.1 to pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) to the complainant towards compensation for mental agony and harassment, the respondent no.1 is order so.  

3.      Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the complainant preferred an appeal being No.1046/2014 before the State commission.  Here also the opposite parties did not appear and the State Commission passed ex-parte order on 29.09.2015:-

“(1)   Appeal is partly allowed.

(2)   In the order of the Hon’ble Ahmedabad District (Rural) Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum order to made some changes in the said order as under.

(3)   It is therefore, order to Defendant No.1 Pegeon Stovecraft India Pvt. Ltd. that they have to pay to the complainant Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs only) for the cost of damages to furniture, electric Wiring and other goods at the house of complainant and cost of Chimni Rs.4195 (Rupees Four Thousand One Hundred Ninety Five only) and cost of Gas Stove Rs.4700/- (Rupees Four Thousand Seven Hundred) i.e. Total Rs.3,08,895/- (Rupees Three lacs Eight Hundred Ninety Five only) with interest @9% from the date of complaint to be paid.  The remaining order of the Hon’ble forum is kept intact.”

4.      Hence the present revision petition.

5.      Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.  Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the respondent No.1/complainant had purchased kitchen chimney from the opposite party No.1/petitioner and it was alleged by the complainant that due to some defect in chimney, it caught fire and the stove kept in the kitchen and the house of the complainant was totally burnt.  The District Forum had allowed the compensation of Rs.40,000/- only. The petitioner never received any notice from the District Forum and however, the District Forum passed the ex-parte order and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.40,000/- to the complainant.  The complainant was not satisfied with this award and he preferred an appeal before the State Commission.  Here also, no notice was served on the petitioner, but the State Commission has increased the compensation from Rs.40,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/- without any evidence and without any rhyme or reason.           Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner got the notice of the execution petition and then the petitioner came to know the impugned order.  It was argued by the learned counsel of the petitioner that petitioner has not been able to put forward his defence before any of the consumer fora and therefore, the petitioner must be given a chance to file its written statement and evidence before the District Forum.  It was emphasised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a Bangalore based company and its registered office is at Bangalore.  However, notices issued were sent on its manufacturing unit centre in Himachal Pradesh.  In fact the complainant should have given the registered address of the company as per the rules.  However, the same was not given.  Hence, no notice could be served on the registered address of the company.  Similarly, the State Commission also sent notice on Himachal Pradesh address and therefore, could not be served on the registered office of the company.  When the address of the petitioner was itself not correct, how the service can be deemed to have been effected.  Thus, the case deserves to be remanded to the District Forum where the petitioner should be allowed to file its written statement and evidence.

6.       On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/complainant stated that whatever address was available on the chimney supplied by the opposite party No.1, the same address has been used in the complaint.  If the petitioner can receive the notice sent in the execution proceedings at Himachal Pradesh address, it is not possible to believe that other notices were not received by the petitioner on the same address.

7.      It was further stated that both the fora below have recorded that the notice must have been served at Himachal Pradesh address of the manufacturing unit centre of the company.  Thus, the opposite party No.1 definitely had knowledge about the case.  However, it did not take any care to contest the case.  As sufficient time has elapsed and the complainant has suffered for so many years, there should be no question of remanding the matter either to the State Commission or to the District Forum.  It was stated by the learned counsel that due to defect in chimney, it caught fire and all the stuff kept in the kitchen as well as in the house was gutted in the fire.  The State Commission has rightly allowed a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-.

8.      I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments of both the parties and have examined the material on record. Section 12 of The Companies Act, 2013 defines the Registered office as follows:-

“12. Registered office of company- (1) A company shall, on and from the fifteenth day of its incorporation and at all times thereafter, have a registered office capable of receiving and acknowledging all communications and notices as may be addressed to it.”

9.      From the above, it is clear that registered address of a company is the address on which notices are required to be sent and company is authorised to receive the notices at this address.  Accordingly, legally speaking, the complainant should have given the  registered address of this company while making it opposite party in the complaint case, though it does not give right to the opposite party not to appear if the notice is served at any of their other addresses.  It is clear that the defence of the petitioner has not come before any of the consumer fora and both the orders have been passed ex-parte.  In the absence of the version of the petitioner, both the fora below have assessed the compensation primarily based on the evidence filed by the complainant at quite a different scale.  In these circumstances, for fair decision on the complaint case, it seems necessary that the version of the petitioner is also brought on record. 

10.    Based on the above discussion, the order dated 29.09.2015 of the State Commission and the order dated 30.06.2014 of the District Forum are set aside and the petitioner/opposite party No.1 is allowed to file its written statement within 30 days from the date of this order before the District Forum at a cost of Rs.30,000/- (rupees thirty thousand only) to be paid to the complainant before the District Forum.  If written statement is filed within 30 days and if the cost is paid before the District Forum, the District Forum shall accept the written statement filed by the petitioner/opposite party No.1 and proceed to decide the complaint as per law.  If the written statement is not filed within the period of 30 days from the date of this order or if the cost is not paid before the District Forum, this order shall become infructuous and the orders of the fora below shall stand revived. 

11.    Parties to appear before the District Forum on 30.10.2018. District Forum is directed to dispose this complaint within a period of six months.