08-04-2015 - The O.Ps. – Appellants have filed a petition for stay of the non bailable warrant issued vide order dated 12.03.2015 in Execution Case no. 4/2014 pending before the learned District Consumer Redressal Forum, Ghridih.

2.       The parties agreed that instead of hearing stay matter, the appeal itself may be heard.

3.      Heard the parties on the prayer of condoning the delay of about 178 days in filing this appeal.

4.      Learned counsel for the O.Ps. – Appellants submitted that as the impugned order was passed ex parte and without notice, the Appellants learnt about it from the notice sent in the Execution Case.

5.       On the other hand the Complainant/ Respondent, submitted that the notice was validly served on the Appellants.

6.      On being satisfied with the grounds, the delay of about 178 days in filing this appeal is condoned.

7.       On merits, learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that without notice to the Appellant, wrongly ex parte judgement has been passed by the learned District Forum due to which, the Appellants could not defend themselves.  He referred to the certified copy of the entire order sheet of the Complainant Case.

8.        From the order sheet it appears that the Complaint was admitted on 12.09.2011, and the Complainant was directed to file requisites but he remained continuously absent till 21.03.2012 and did not file requisites inspite of repeated orders. On 30.04.2012 he appeared though lawyer.  It appears from the office note put in the margin against the order dated 30.04.2012 that registered notice was sent to the Appellants and copy of receipt was kept on the record.

Then on 2.02.2013, the learned District Forum passed the following order:

“2.2.2013 Both parties are absent. The record is fixed for appearance of O.Ps. on registered card were sent to the O.P. on 17.09.2011 within did not returned unserved till the date. Thus presumption would be that the notices were served upon the O.Ps. though registered post.  Thus the case is fixed for hearing ex parte. The complainant is directed to adduce evidence.

                  Next date is fixed on 21.02.2013 for evidence.”

9.      As per the said order the registered card was sent to the O.Ps. - Appellants on 17.09.2011 whereas from the order sheet it appears that it was sent after 30.04.2012 and therefore the presumption of service of notice taken by the learned District Forum is wrong. Further, while presuming service of notice, it simultaneously fixed the case for ex parte hearing, and ultimately the impugned judgement was passed ex parte against the O.Ps. – Appellants.

10.    Mr. Baleshwar Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the Complainant – Respondent could not controvert the said position. 

Therefore it has to be accepted that there was no service of notice on the O.Ps. – Appellants, and they had no opportunity to defend themselves.

11.      In the circumstances the impugned judgement the set side.  The parties are directed to appear before the learned District Forum at 11A.M. on 27.04.2015.

The Learned District Forum will fixed date(s) and will pass a fresh order, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties, in accordance with law.

However, if any party unnecessarily delays the disposal of the case, the learned District Forum can fix the case for ex parte hearing and can pass exparte order.

Since this Complaint is of the year 2011, the parties are directed to co-operate in early disposal of the case.

With these observations and directions this appeal stands disposed off.

                      Issue free copy of this order to all concerned for information and needful.

                   Ranchi,

                   Dated:-08/04/2015