Miscellaneous Application No. 472 of 2010 in Revision Petition No. 620 of 2008 TATA Tea Ltd., which was one of the opposite parties in the complaint filed by M/s. Overseas Trading Corporation in the District Forum -2- of Delhi has filed this application under Section 22 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘the Act’) seeking recall of the order dated 26.3.2008 passed by this Commission. The application has been moved primarily on the grounds that the aforesaid order was passed by this Commission in absence of the applicant-respondent and there exists various other circumstances, which are relatable to the proceedings, which were taken in the complaint before the District Forum and thereafter in appeal, filed by the respondent-applicant and M/s. Satya Priya Road lines Pvt. Ltd., another opposite party before the District Forum. Yet another ground set up for setting aside the order dated 26.3.2008 is that the applicant-respondent was not served with the notice on the complaint purportedly issued by the District Forum. 2. We have called for the record of the complaint proceedings from the District Forum that of the State Commission in the appeal and have heard the counsel for the parties at length. After going through the said record, atleast one thing is clear that no proper service of the notice on the complaint was effected on the present respondent-applicant. It may be due to the reason that the applicant had changed its address to Mumbai. The fact remains that even without proper service of the notice on the respondent-applicant, the District Forum made the order of ex-parte proceedings against it and decided the complaint ex-parte. -3- Subsequently, on getting knowledge of the said complaint, proceedings and order passed by the District Forum, the respondent filed appeal before the State Commission and the State Commission remanded back the complaint to the District Forum for deciding the same afresh after affording an opportunity to the Respondent-applicant to put up its defence. The State Commission while remanding the case, directed the parties to appear before the District Forum on 18.9.2007 for further proceedings. However, either on that date or atleast two subsequent dates for which the proceedings were adjourned, there was no appearance from the side of the complainant and therefore, vide an order dated 28.11.2007, the complaint of the complainant was dismissed in default. In the meantime, the complainant and M/s. Satya Priya Roadlines Pvt. Ltd., moved this Commission with two Revision Petition Nos. 619/2008 and 620/2008, which were heard and disposed of vide an order dated 26.3.2008 assuming that the notice on the RP was duly served on the respondent-applicant. It is verified from the record of the Revision Petitions that, actually no service of the notice on the RPs was affected on the respondent-applicant. 3. Counsel for the respondent-applicant submits that the applicant has been greatly prejudiced on account of the above stated proceedings. It is submitted by the counsel that after the execution was filed in the District -4- Court, he inspected the file of this Commission by filing an application for inspection of the record of RP 619 and 620, but the inspection could not be done as the file was stated to be missing. Since, there is no record of either serving or service of notice, we called upon the Registry to submit a report in this regard. We have seen the office report dated 15.9.2011 submitted by the Dy. Registrar. On consideration of the same, we are of the view that the notice on the RPs was not duly served on the respondent-applicant TATA Tea Ltd. and therefore, the order dated 26.3.2008 came to be passed in absence of the applicant-respondent. Under these circumstances, we are inclined to recall the order-dated 26.3.2008. The application is disposed of accordingly. 4. Since several developments have taken place in the matter before passing and subsequent to the passing of the said order, we consider it appropriate that the complaint be remanded back to the concerned District Forum for deciding the same afresh after affording an opportunity to the respondent-applicant to put up its defence. The parties are directed to appear before the concerned District Forum on 18.10.2011 for receiving the directions in the matter. The record received from the District Forum shall be returned forthwith through special messenger. The Respondent-applicant shall file its written version of defence in response to the complaint on the said date as also its current / present corresponding -5- address with the District Forum. If no written version is filed by the respondent-applicant, its defence shall be struck off and the order dated 26.3.2008 passed by the District Forum shall stand restored. We direct the District Forum to decide the complaint as expeditiously as may be practicable but not later than three months from the date of appearance of the parties before it. | 
