Heard learned counsel for the appellants. None appears for the respondent.

2.      Here is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.

3.   The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the OPs have business to provide holiday facilities at various places at Puri. Complainant alleged inter alia that he has deposited Rs.22,682/- and purchased a vacation  ownership agreement on 3.6.2008 at Puri from OP No.1. As per the agreement, complainant is required to pay the rest of the membership fees in instalment and complainant stated to have paid all the instalments and got the money receipts. It is alleged by the complainant that after all instalments paid, the complainant neither received any membership certificate nor any documents from the OPs. Complainant also desired to avail the services under STUDIO RED Scheme and approached the local branch office of the OPs in May, 2009 but OP No.2 expressed inability. Complainant contacted OP No.1 but that facility was also not given. So finding no other way, he filed the complaint case.

4.      OPs neither appeared nor filed any written version.

5.      After hearing the complainant ex parte, learned District Forum has passed the following impugned order:-

                             “xxx   xxx   xxx

            The complaint is allowed ex parte. The opp.parties are directed to refund a sum of Rs.1,16,825/- along with compensatory interest 18% per annum from the date of deposit till its refund. Besides, the opp.parties are directed to pay cost of the litigation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order.”

6.      Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned District Forum has committed error in law by passing ex parte impugned order without hearing the OPs. According to him, they have never received the summon from the District Forum and the matter has been disposed of against them. If the matter is remanded, they would produce all documents and defeat the case of the complainant and accordingly, submitted to remand the matter by allowing the appeal.

7.   Considered the submission of learned counsel for  the appellants and perused the DFR including the impugned order.

8.      The impugned order does not show whether the acknowledgement has been received or not. But record shows that the acknowledgement has been received after due service. So it is not a fact that there was no service of notice. However, when the appellant desires to contest the matter and is ready to file the written version, it is better to decide the case on merit than passing the order ex parte. However, it is a matter of 2010 and after long years it is remanded. In such circumstances, complainant should be compensated with cost as it is matter  of 2010.

9.     In view of aforesaid discussion, the appeal is allowed by remanding the same to the learned District Forum to give opportunity to the OPs to file written version and adduce evidence and disposed of same within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order subject to payment of cost of Rs.15,000/- by the appellants to the complainant/respondent before the learned District Forum after which the learned District Forum would allow the present appellant to file written version. The copy of this order be supplied to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission and place it before the learned District Commission on 05.10.2021 for taking further instruction from it. It is made clear that this Commission has not opined anything on the merit of the case and the learned District Commission is at liberty to pass speaking order on the materials produced by the parties and dispose of it within the aforesaid stipulated period.  

        DFR be sent back forthwith.