ORDER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. This order shall decide the above two detailed revision petitions as the same are between the same opposite parties but different complainants and entail similar questions of law and facts. The State Commission had dismissed both the appeals as there was delay in filing the appeals by 385 dayseach. Sh. Nirmal Mundra and Sh. Kumaresh Majumdar filed two separate complaints against Sh. Prasenjit Sarkar, OP1, Sh. Bhaswar Sarkar, OP2, Sh. Prasad Ghosh, OP3 and M/s. MJM Properties, OP4. The operative part of the judgment passed by the District Forum, dated 01.04.2010, runs as follows:- RDERED That the case be and the same is allowed ex-parte against OP Nos. 3 and 4 with cost and the case is dismissed on contest against OP Nos. 1 and 2 without cost. The OP Nos. 3 and 4 is directed to execute and register the deed of conveyance in respect of two flats and car parking space mentioned in the schedule of petition of complaint within 60 days from this date and they shall either arrange for obtaining the signature of the OP Nos. 1 and 2 in the said deed of conveyance within the above period or shall obtain marketable title to the said property before execution of the above deed of conveyance within the period mentioned above. If the OPs fail to comply with the aforesaid order, the complainant will be at liberty to get back the money paid to the OP Nos. 3 and 4 and intimate in writing to the OP Nos. 3 and 4 about their intention to get the money back fixing a date for refunding the money paid by them towards consideration price of two flats and the car parking space simultaneously along with giving back the possession of the flats and car parking space to the OP Nos. 3 and 4 and if the complainant intend to take the money back paid by them, the OP 3 and OP4 shall return the money to the complainant along with compensation equivalent to three times of the money paid by the complainant simultaneously at the time of taking back the possession of the flats and car parking space within 60 days from the date of such intention of taking back the money is intimated to the OP Nos. 3 and 4 by the complainant. The OP Nos. 3 and 4 is further directed to pay cost of Rs.3,000/- each towards litigation cost to the complainant within 60 days from this order. If the OP3 and 4 fail to execute the deed of conveyance and fails to arrange for obtaining signature of OP Nos. 1 and 2 in the deed of conveyance or fails to return the consideration money along with compensation getting back possession of subject property as ordered within the time specified by this Forum, the OP Nos. 3 and 4 shall together pay penalty @ Rs.100/- per day till the order of the Forum is complied with in full 2. The key defence set up by the petitioners Sh. Prasad Ghosh, OP3 and M/s. MJM Properties, OP 4 was that they were not served in this case. They were not aware of the judgment passed by the District Forum. On 15.03.2011, the petitioners came to know about this case when the police approached them in their premises and a search was conducted pursuant to the warrant issued by the learned court. After getting this information, the petitioner approached their counsel who got the certified copy of the judgment. They got legal opinion and filed the appeal before the State Commission. The delay caused by the petitioners was not deliberate. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the opportunity of hearing must be granted to them because the order passed by the District Forum is not sustainable. He contended that the petitioners were not available in town and they were not served as such. 4. All these arguments are lame of strength. The order of the State Commission reveals that the unserved envelope in respect of OP 3 was returned with endorsement ot claimed The State Commission held that it tantamounts to ood service Again, the registered letter sent to OP4 was duly received and the District Forum came to the conclusion that OP4 was served in that case. 5. This view neatly dovetails with the following authorities. Dealing with the subject of service of summons and notices the Honle Supreme Court held in the case of V.Rajakumari Vs. P. Subbarama Naidu, I (2005) BC 1 (State Commission)=IV (2004) SLT 443, that where the addressee managed to get the notice returned with postal remarks ot available in the house ouse lockedand hop closed respectively, it must be deemed that notices have been served. 6. See also the views taken by the Honle Apex Court in cases reported in Basant Singh and Another Vs. Roman Catholic Mission, V (2002) SLT 545=AIR 2002 SC 3557 and Madan & Co. Vs. Wazir Jaiver Chandra, AIR 1989 SC 630. In view of these authorities, the OP Nos. 3 and 4 were duly served in this case. 7. Again, the case set up by the complainants is that OPs 1 and 2 have entered their appearance and contested the case by filing their written version, but the petitioners did not bother to contest the case in spite of notice. It was also contended that after passing of the judgment on 03.08.2010, the learned counsel for the complainant had duly communicated the gist of the order to the petitioners by issuing a letter dated 11.05.2010 through registered AD. Sh. Prasad Ghosh, OP3 duly received the said letter by putting his signature on the AD Card and the unserved envelop of petitioner No.1 was returned with the postal remarks ntimation on 14.05.2010 The complainants had filed an application under section 27 of the CPA, 1986 and the said Forum was pleased to issue show-cause notice upon the OPs. Thereafter, warrant of arrest was issued. Petitioner No.1 also received notice on 04.11.2011. All these facts were not denied by the OPs. 8. Consequently, the State Commission came to the correct decision that the two appeals are barred by time. This view finds support from the following authorities. 9. In Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), it has been held that t is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras 10. In Balwant Singh Vs. Jagdish Singh & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 1166 of 2006), decided on 08.10.2010, in which it was held that the party should show that besides acting bonafide, it had taken all possible steps within its power and control and had approached the Court without any unnecessary delay. The test is whether or not a cause is sufficient to see whether it could have been avoided by the party by the exercise of due care and attention. 11. See the law laid down in (1) R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC)= I (2009) SLT 701=2009 (2) Scale 108, (2) Ram Lal and Others Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, (3) Sow. Kamalabai, W/o Narasaiyya Shrimal and Narsaiyya, S/o Sayanna Shrimal Vs. Ganpat Vithalroa Gavare, 2007 (1) Mh. LJ 807 and (4) Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Ltd. Versus Vasantkumar H. Khandelwal & Anr.[Revision petition No. 1848 of 2012 decided on 21.05.2012, by the Bench presided over by Honle President]. 12. Application is, therefore, dismissed. The revision petitions are therefore, dismissed.