JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) 1. There is a delay of 424 days in filing the first appeal before the State Commission. The petitioner was proceeded against ex parte before the District Forum. The petitioner submits that he was not served in this case. 2. I have perused the record. The record reveals that on 17.5.2011, notice was received back with the report ‘incomplete address’. The District Forum ordered that fresh notice be issued to opposite party on the alternative address which is already mentioned by the complainant in the complaint. The matter was adjourned for 8.6.2011. On 8.6.2011, the District Forum found that notice was sent at the alternative address but no report was received. The case was adjourned to 1.7.2011. On 1.7.2011, the complainant was directed to file correct address of the opposite party and the case was adjourned to 5.7.2011. On 5.7.2011, correct address was not filed. The case was adjourned to 15.7.2011. The complainant was directed to file fresh address and thereafter, fresh notice was to be issued for 27.7.2011. On 27.7.2011, correct address of opposite party was filed. It was ordered that notice would be issued for 18.8.2011. On 18.8.2011, it was reported that opposite party had left the given address. Fresh notice was issued for 16.9.2011. On 16.9.2011, notice was received back with the report that the opposite party No. 1 had left without address. Fresh notice was issued for 12.10.2011. 2. On 12.10.2011, an application under Section 5 rule 20 C.P.C. for publication of service was moved. The court ordered that the service be effected by publication. The case was fixed for 18.11.2011. Ultimately, the petitioner was served through substituted service vide order dated 10.1.2012. 3. The attention of the court was also invited towards the invoice No. 1833, Challan No. 573. It clearly mentions that the petitioner had main branch at New Delhi and other branches at Bombay, Chennai, Bangalore, Kolkata, Tripur, Tuticorin, Cochin, Ludhiana and NOIDA. It therefore, means that the petitioner has branch at Ludhiana. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to inform the address of Ludhiana Branch. He also could not deny or admit whether the address of Ludhiana Branch given in the notice is correct? This is clear that the intention of the opposite party is to take its customers for a ride. This invoice itself establishes negligence on the part of the petitioner. Again, he changes the address every now and then. The petitioner did not specifically mention what were the addresses of the branches in order to pull the wool in the eye of law. At the same time, it also stand established that the petitioner was not personally served. The plea of substituted service stands rebutted by the affidavit filed by the respondent. There is huge delay. 4. In the interest of justice, I hereby condone the delay, set aside the order passed by the State Commission, subject to payment of Rs.25,000/- as costs which be paid to the respondent/M/s Lakra Industries Ltd. through demand draft in the name of the respondent till the next date of hearing. The case is remitted back to the State Commission with a direction to hear both the parties and decide the case on merits after satisfying that the costs stands paid to the respondent. In case the costs is not paid, the State Commission will be at liberty to dismiss the case for non-prosecution. The State Commission shall not adjourn the case any further. This is an old case. The State Commission will try to expedite the same within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order. The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 10.1.2014. It is also made clear that the said demand draft can be handed over to the complainant before the State commission on the date already fixed. The revision petition stands disposed of. |
