This revision is directed against the order passed by Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Siliguri dated 01/04/2019 in reference to CC/128/S/2016. The revisional case in nutshell is that the revisionist Ms. S. Agarwalla and ors. has purchased a mobile phone from Cloud Tail India Pvt. Ltd. through online seller Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. After receiving the said mobile set the user faced some sort of troubles for non-functioning of the mobile and handed over the said mobile set to Ganapati Cellular, the service center of the mobile phone. The actual manufacturer of the said mobile set was Coolpad communications Pvt Ltd. Thereafter, for the sell of defective mobile set and deficiency of service and for unfair trade practice the complainant has registered a consumer complaint before the Ld. Forum. The consumer complaint was admitted and notice was issued through Post upon the four opposite parties mentioned in the cause title of the consumer complaint. Thereafter, the notice of OP no. 4 that is Coolpad Communication Pvt. Ltd. returned unserved with postal endorsement “left”. Ld. Forum then asked the complainant to cause fresh service upon the OP no. 4 by paper publication as substituted service. The complainant then approached the Ld. Forum to delete the name of the OP no. 4 from the cause title of the complainant which was turned down by the Ld. Forum and thereafter the complainant files a petition before the Ld. Forum for treating the service of notice upon the OP no. 4 as complete and effected. Said petition was rejected by the Ld. Forum vide order no. 27 dated 01/04/2019.

            Being aggrieved with the said order this revision follows on the ground that the order of Ld. Forum was full of error without appreciation of exact provision of law and the said order should be set aside. The revisional application was registered before this Commission in due time and it is admitted on its own merit and the Ops of this case were informed about the case by due notice through post. The OP no. 1 of this revision that is Ganapati Cellular did not contest the revisional application in spite of receiving the notice. The OP no. 2 and 3 has contested the case through Ld. Advocate G. Rabbani and the revisionist was heard in presence of Ld. Advocate Mr. P. D. Dalmia.

Decisions with reasons

The admitted position is that the Ld. Forum after accepting the consumer complaint issued notice through its office by postal authority in respect of Op no. 1 to 4 of the consumer complaint case. OP no. 4 that is the manufacturer of the said mobile set changed the immediate address and for that reason the notice of the consumer complaint was returned unserved with a postal endorsement “left”. It is also admitted position that the complainant has purchased the said mobile set through online agent Amazon from the OP no. 3 of the consumer complaint case that is Cloud Tail India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. And the actual manufacturer of the said product was the Coolpad Communication Pvt. Ltd. The case of the complainant also is that due to such defective product they have handed over the same to the authorized service center at Siliguri that is Ganapati Cellular Pvt. Ltd. and the allegation is that the said mobile set is till lying in that establishment. Ld. Advocate of the complainant mentioned that he cited the address of OP no. 4 in the cause title of the complaint in view of the letter addressed to the complainant by the seller of the said mobile set that is Cloud Tail India Pvt. Ltd. (OP no. 3) and the service return with postal endorsement “left” means as per provisions of law is good service and there are catena of judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in this regard establishes the contention of the complaint. Who referred a judicial decision reported in AIR 2017 Supreme Court 1681 where the Hon’ble Court has observed that when a notice is sent in a registered post which returns with postal endorsement “refused” or “not available” or “House Locked” or “Shop Closed” or “Addressee out of station” etc, then the court shall have the opportunity to presume that service has properly been done upon the addressee. Ld. Advocate of the OP no. 2 and 3 in his turn at the time of argument mentioned that the complainant at first tried to delete the name of the OP no. 4 from the cause title of the consumer complaint. Their prayer was struck down and they did not prefer any revision before the Higher Forum. Now, they have again tried to establish the presumption that the service upon the Op no. 4 as good service which was also turned down by the Ld. Forum as the Ld. Forum had already directed the complainant/revisionist to cause substituted service upon the OP no. 4 by paper publication. He further submits that now the complainant wanted to avoid the said responsibility of paper publishing and tried to obtain a short cut route to apprise the Ld. Forum that the postal endorsement “left” shall have to be presumed as good service.

After hearing the valuable arguments of both sides and after consulting the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the Commission finds that the complainant after knowing the address of OP no. 4 from the letter of OP no. 3, has sent the notice to the address of OP no. 4 and as soon as notice was placed before the Postal authority who took the burden of servicing the said notice upon the addressee then there is sufficient ground to presume that the notice has been duly served upon the OP no. 4. In this particular case the complainant/revisionist should not be burdened the responsibility to publish the notice of OP no. 4 in a newspaper of Mumbai where the office of the OP no. 4 is located. Rather the Op no. 3 who is the original seller of the said mobile set are already contesting the case by submitting the W.V and then there is no need to drag the case further for want of service of notice upon the OP no. 4. Therefore, it is better in the interest of justice to presume that OP no. 4 of the consumer complaint has been duly informed about the existence of the consumer complaint case by a valid notice and if the said OP no. 4 does not come before the Ld. Forum to contest the case then the Ld. Forum shall have the opportunity to hear the case ex parte against the OP no. 4. Therefore, for the interest of justice the revisional application should be allowed so that the consumer complaint case should be adjudicated within a short span of time.

Hence it is ordered: -

That the instant revisional application filed by the revisionist is hereby allowed on contest against the OP no. 2 and 3 and ex parte against OP no. 1 of this revision without cost. The impugned order no. 27 dated 01/04/2019 passed by the Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Siliguri in CC/128/S/2016 is hereby set aside. The Ld. Forum, Siliguri is hereby requested to dispose the consumer complaint within a short span of time in accordance with provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 treating the service of notice upon the OP no. 4 as proper and good service. Let a copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost and the same be communicated to the Ld. Concerned Forum through e-mail.