This appeal is preferred against the order dated 16/5/2007 passed in CC No.102/07 by the District Forum, Yavatmal by which the complaint has been partly allowed.
The case of the complainant, as set forth in the complaint, in brief is that the Opposite Party (for short OP ) Nos.1 & 2 launched a contest by name “Surf Excel 10/10 contest” and thereby offered to the general public amount of Rs.5 lac towards student scholarship and other prizes. As per that scheme, the participant had to buy new Surf Excel quick wash tab having 10/10 contest printed on it and whoever gets a cloth (swatch) having numerical score as 10/10, would get Rs.5 lac as scholership. The purchasers who found cloth (swatch) having printed thereon 2/10,3/10,5/10, would get other prizes. Therefore, the complainant purchased half Kgs.of surf excel for Rs.56/- from OP No.3. He found swatch having printed thereon 10/10. Therefore, he sent scanning of the same to OP No.2 by Registered Post on 27/10/2006. He received acknowledgment from OP No.2 about the same on 9/11/2006. Thereafter, Shri.Naidu, the agent of OP No.1 & 2, called upon the complainant to send original swatch to OP No.2. Therefore, the complainant sent it to OP No.1 on 11/12/2006. It was received by OP No.2 on 2/1/2007. OP No.2 vide letter dated 2/1/2007 informed the complainant that he will get only sport bag on the basis of that swatch. The complainant wrote a letter on 5/1/2007 to OP No.1 to give him Rs.5 lac towards scholarship. The OP No.2 vide letter dated 27/12/2006 informed the complainant that as no code number is written on that swatch, his claim can not be accepted. Therefore, the complainant claimed Rs.5 lac from the OP Nos.1,2 & 3. He also claimed Rs.25,000/- towards mental harassment and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the complaint.
The District Forum below, sent notices to OP No.1 & 2. It found that the OP No.1 & 2 have not appeared though served with the said notices. Therefore, it proceeded exparte against them. The OP No.3 appeared before the Forum below, but failed to file its written version.
The District Forum below, after considering the evidence brought on record, passed the impugned order on 16.5.2007 in CC No.102/2007 partly allowing the said complaint and directing the OP No.1 & 2 to pay Rs.5 lacs to the complainant towards scholarship of his children and also to pay him Rs.5000/- towards mental harassment and Rs.1000/- towards cost of complaint. It dismissed the complaint as against OP No.3.
Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the appellant Hindustan Unilever Ltd.Co. has preferred this appeal. The delay in preferring appeal has been condoned as per order dated 9/2/2010.
The notices were issued to the Respondent No.1 to 4 by this Commission for hearing before admission. They remained absent despite of service of notice. Therefore, after hearing the appellants advocate we admitted the appeal on 19/11/2012. Notice after admission was issued to the Respondents Nos.1 to 4. Adv.R.J.Shinde appeared for Responent No.1 on 3/4/2013. Respondent No.2,3 & 4 failed to appear though served with notice. The appellant was directed to file service affidavit on 23/7/2013. The appellant filed the acknowledgment alongwith the private notice and the service affidavit on 23/7/2013. They remained absent and therefore, this Commission proceeded exparte against them as per order dated 23/7/2013.
The appeal was then adjourned for final hearing. Appellant’s advocate filed written notes of arguments on 17/9/2013. None appeard for Respondent No.1 on 17/9/2013 for final hearing. Therefore, we heard advocate of the appellant and appeal was reserved for order.
The Learned advocate of the appellant submitted that the appellant is a duly registered company and its registered office is situated on the address at “165-166, Backbay Reclamation, Mumbai”. He further submitted that the Regional Office of the appellant is situated at “Uttara, Plot No.2, Sector-11, CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai”. He further submitted that the appellant company was made party to the complaint through its Senior Manager, but the address for service of notice in cause title of the complaint was not that of registered office or regional office of the Appellant company. He further submitted that the said address given in the complaint was of third party as “Alfa Data Centre, P.B.No.3904, Girgaon, Mumbai, 400004” and notices were not issued by the Forum below on the Registered address of the appellant and hence the appellant did not receive that notice, and, therefore, it did not appear before the Forum below. Thus, he argued that as there is violation of principles of natural justice and the appellant company is deprived of opportunity of hearing, the impugned order is erroneous and it may be set aside.
The perusal of the impugned order shows that the appellant Hinustan Liver Ltd.Company is made party to the complaint as OP No.2 through its Senior Branch Manager, and address for service of notice to it is given in the complaint as through “Alfa Data Centre, P.B.No.3904, Girgaon, Mumbai, 400004”. Therefore, it is obvious that the notice was not directly served to appellant on its registered address described above. The service of notice to the Senior Branch Manager of Appellant Company on his different address noted above, can not be said to be proper service of notice to the appellant company. Therefore, we are inclined to accept the submission of the Learned advocate of the appellant that the appellant was not given the opportunity of hearing by serving notice of complaint to it, and, hence it is necessary to give opportunity of hearing to the appellant to contest the complaint. Therefore, the impugned order needs to be set aside and the complaint deserves to be remanded for fresh hearing.
ORDER
The appeal is allowed as under.
The impugned order dated 16/5/2007 passed in CC No.102/2007 by the District Forum, Yavatmal is hereby set-aside.
The complaint bearing CC No.102/2007 is remanded to the District Forum, Yavatmal for fresh hearing and decision according to law.
The appellant shall appear before the District Forum, Yavatmal on 2/12/2013.
The District Forum, Yavatmal shall issue notice to Ori. complainant Parmanand Sahebrao Wankhede and Original OP No.1 & 3 for fresh hearing.
No orders as to cost in appeal.
