This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 09.10.2017 passed by the State Commission passed in FA No.1224 of 2016.

           Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant at the admission stage.

          Learned counsel states that he had filed a complaint against the electricity department before the District Forum being complaint No.324 of 2015.  The District Forum adjudicated the complaint in favour of the petitioner vide its order dated 25.10.2016 which reads as under :

         “Accordingly, it is directed to the respondents not to disconnect the electricity supply of the complainant.  Further it is directed to the respondents to install the electricity meter to the tubewell of the complainant and further to regularize the electricity connection of the complainant.

         With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

        Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.”

           The opposite party preferred an appeal being FA No. 1224 of 2016 before the State Commission.  The State Commission proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner herein and vide its order dated 04.09.2017, decided the appeal ex-parte by allowing the appeal filed by the opposite party and dismissing the complaint against the petitioner.  He further states that the order dated 4.9.2017 of the State Commission clearly states that the notice has been deemed as served under Section 28 A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 because the notice or AD Card was not received back within 30 days. 

             Learned counsel further states that on the one hand, the opposite party vide their letter dated 15.5.2017 issued a letter to the complainant asking for certain records to comply with the District Forum Order, therefore, the complainant could not have even imagined that there was any appeal being filed against the order of the District Forum.  When the electricity department cut his electricity connection in the month of August, 2019, then it was realized that the State Commission has set aside the order passed by the District Forum in the appeal filed by the opposite party and then this revision petition has been filed.  Thus, there is a delay in filing the present revision petition.

             Learned counsel further states that even the electricity bills have been sent to the complainant till May, 2019 which were duly paid by the complainant.

             Even after passing of the State Commission order, the opposite party did not take any action against the complainant and the only action was taken in last week of August, 2019 therefore the delay should be counted from August, 2019.  The certified copy of the impugned order has been issued only on 06.09.2019. 

             Learned counsel further states that the impugned order has been passed without hearing the complainant and it is only a one sided order and needs to be set aside and order of the District Forum be sustained.

       I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and examined the record.

             It is seen that the impugned order has been passed when neither of the parties were present.   Thus no notice is being given to the other side in the present matter.  It is further seen that the order dated 4.9.2017 by which the complainant was proceeded ex-parte is an order passed under Section 28 A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  First of all it is not mentioned in the order whether the notice was sent through registered post or by an ordinary post.  As the Section states that the notices should have been sent by registered post and in the present case, it is not recorded that the notice was sent by registered post, hence Section 28 A cannot be applicable in the present case. Moreover due to uncertainty of delivery of post, Section 28 A cannot be relied practically and the State Commission should have tried to serve the notice actually on the complainant.  Be that as it may,  it is clear that the complainant has  been proceeded ex-parte and he has not got any opportunity to defend the order passed by the District Forum before the State Commission and hence the complainant deserves to put forward his case before the State Commission.  Thus clearly the order dated 4.9.2017 is not sustainable and consequently impugned order dated 09.10.2017 is also not sustainable in the present facts and circumstances of the case.  The impugned order of the State Commission in FA No.1224 of 2016 is set aside at a cost of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner with the legal aid account of the State Commission on or before the date being given for appearance before the State Commission. The State Commission shall have the power to extend the time if need be, by 30 days.   Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the State Commission for deciding the Appeal No.1224 of 2016 after giving opportunity to both the parties of being heard.

          Parties to appear before the State Commission on 14.01.2020.