APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS For the Petitioner Mr. Nikhil Jain, Advocate For the Respondent Mr. Yogendra Singh, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON : 4th MARCH 2014 O R D E R PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 02.07.2012, passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission in FA No. 1434/2004, /s Mohit Properties & Constructions versus Meera Singhvide which, while dismissing the appeal, the order dated 20.11.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kanpur City in consumer complaint No. 739/2003, allowing the said complaint, was upheld. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent Meera Singh filed the consumer complaint in question, saying that she had purchased plots bearing no. 34A.H.8.A admeasuring 200 sq. yard and 10 sq. yard and that she had deposited a sum of ` 50,000/- and ` 10,000/- on 2.09.2000 and 1.12.99 vide receipts no. 893 and 202 respectively with the opposite party. The OP assured to handover the possession of the said plots, but they refused to execute the sale-deeds in her favour and also refused to refund amount of ` 60,000/- received by them. The complainant sent a registered notice to the OP on 2.09.2001, which was not replied to by the OP. The OP told her that a sum of ` 10,000/- had been refunded to her husband. They refused to refund amount of `50,000/- also. The complainant also stated that there was civil litigation between her and her husband. She demanded through the complaint that a sum of `60,000/- deposited by her should be refunded alongwith ` 50,000/- for financial compensation and ` 25,000/- for mental agony. The District Forum vide their order dated 20.11.2003, allowed the complaint, directing the OP to pay a sum of ` 60,000/- alongwith interest @8% p.a. from the date of deposit and ` 250/- as litigation expenses. An appeal filed against this order was ordered to be dismissed by the State Commission vide impugned order dated 2.07.2010. It is against this order that the present petition has been made. 3. At the time of hearing before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the full amount had been refunded to the complainant husband by the petitioner and hence, there was no substance in the consumer complaint. He further stated that the order passed by the District Forum was an exparte order and the petitioners were never served with any notice, regarding the proceedings pending before the District Forum. In the memo of appeal filed before State Commission, they had taken the plea that the petitioner had no knowledge about the said proceedings, as no notice of any kind was received by them. The petitioner came to know about the proceedings in the consumer courts only after recovery certificate under section 25 of the Act was received by them. The learned counsel has also drawn our attention to copy of receipt from Harbansh Singh, the husband of complainant/ respondent, in which it has been stated categorically that Harbansh Singh received the amount of `60,000/- from the petitioner. 4. In reply, the learned counsel for the respondent stated that proper service of notice had been affected upon the petitioner/OP and only after that, exparte proceedings were ordered to be taken against them. He further stated that it was the duty of the petitioner to refund the money to the respondent and not her husband, as the booking was done in the name of the respondent. 5. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. The material point to be considered in the present case is regarding the service upon the petitioners during the hearing of the consumer complaint by the District Forum. It has been stated in the order of the District Forum as follows:- he opposite party was served with notice through registered post. The postal receipt is available on record file. The registered notice returned from the Postal Department with remarks ot claimed Therefore, considering the notice to have sufficiently been served upon the Opposite Party, the exparte hearing was initiated against the Opposite Party. 6. It is clear from the above order of the District Forum that the registered notice to the petitioner/OP was returned by the Postal Department with remarks ot claimed The District Forum took erroneous view that the notice had been properly served upon the petitioner/OP. Had the petitioner refused to accept the service of the notice, the District Forum was well within their powers to order exparte proceedings before them. The order of the District Forum is, therefore, perverse in the eyes of law as the same has been passed without affecting due service of notice upon the petitioner. In the grounds of appeal before the State Commission, the petitioners/OP had taken the plea that they never received any notice during proceedings before the District Forum. However, the State Commission still dismissed their appeal. 7. In the light of the foregoing discussion, in the interest of justice, it shall be appropriate to set aside the orders of the District Forum and the State Commission and to remand the case back to the District Forum with the direction that they should hear the parties again and pass a fresh order after taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, and we order accordingly. The revision petition is, therefore, accepted, orders passed by the District Forum and State Commission are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the District Forum for taking a fresh decision after taking on record written statement of OP and hearing the parties who have been directed to appear before the District Forum on 28.05.2014. The OP shall file written statement on that day. There shall be no order as to costs.