This revision petition has filed against the order dated 07.10.2013 passed by Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (short, “State Commission”) in F.A. No.933/2013.

2.      The petitioner has assailed the impugned order of the State Commission on two counts.  Firstly, it is contended that the impugned order is non-speaking and is violation of natural justice.  On merits, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the State Commission while dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation, the State Commission ignored the fact that the petitioner was wrongly proceeded ex-parte as he was not served with the notice of the complaint.  Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the petitioner came to know about the order of the District Forum dated 21.06.2011 only when the police visited the Branch Office of the petitioner bank for execution of the warrant of arrest of the then Manager issued in the execution proceedings.  Ongoing to know about the impugned order, the petitioner promptly applied for the certified copy of the order and the record of the complaint and on the receipt of the record on 07.08.2013, the appeal was filed in the State Commission in September, 2013.

3.      The respondents failed to put in appearance despite notice of service of the revision petition.  Accordingly, the respondents were proceeded ex-parte.

4.       On a careful perusal of the record, we find merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.  From the record it transpires that on 21.06.2011, the following proceedings were recorded by the District Forum as under:-

“02.           None appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party inspite of valid service, thereafter ex-parte order was passed.”

          On 06.08.2008, the District Forum had proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner.  The relevant proceedings are reproduced as under:

“Complainant Advocate Manohar Badotiya Present.  That again notices to be issued to Opposite Party No.1 for service.  That notices are dispatched to opposite party no.2 through registered post.  Hence as per the principle of presumption of service, service of Opposite Party no.2 is hereby ex-parte proceedings against the Opposite Party No.2 is hereby implemented.  For the service of Opposite Party no.1 present on 16.10.2008.”

5.      On reading of the above noted proceedings recorded by the District Forum, it is clear that the notices dispatched to the petitioner were not received back nor any service report was received.  Therefore, the District Forum drew a presumption of service.

6.      No doubt in law if a notice sent through postal process at the correct address and it is neither received back undelivered nor the service report is received, a presumption can be drawn but the said presumption is rebuttable.    The petitioner has taken categorically stand that he was not served with the notice of the complaint and in support of his stand he filed affidavit in this Commission affirming that he was not served.  Therefore, in our opinion, the petitioner has been able to rebut the presumption of service and the ex-parte order passed against the petitioner by the District Forum on 06.08.2008 is liable to be set aside.  The State Commission without appreciating the facts in the true context has passed the impugned order resulting in dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation. 

7.      Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the District Forum with the direction that the District Forum shall decide the complaint within six months after due notice to the parties and giving an opportunity to the petitioner to file written statement and lead evidence in his support.  Parties to appear before the District Forum on 27.09.2016.