Weigh Well India and Another Vs. Aggarwal Steel Industries - Court Judgment

K.K. Srivastava, President:

1. This appeal has been filed by M/s. Weigh Well India and Sh. S.C. Verma partner of appellant No. 1 - M/s. Weigh Well India against the order dated 8.6.2000 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum-II) in Complaint Case No. 350 of 1996 filed by the respondent - M/s. Aggarwal Steel Industries, 172, Phase II, Industrial Area, Chandigarh. The District Forum-II has proceeded ex-parte against the appellants and decided the complaint case accordingly. The District Forum-II has allowed the complaint with consolidated costs for Rs. 500/- with a direction to the opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs. 1,92,000/- as a price of the machine and take back the defective machine from the complainant. The interest on the amount of Rs. 1,92,000/- was allowed at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of complaint to the date of payment.

2. Notice of the appeal was issued to the respondent/complainant who put in appearance through Counsel. Record of the complaint case was summoned from the District Forum-II. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant and have perused the order under appeal and the record of the complaint case.

3. The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the District Forum-II fell into error in upholding the service of notice of the complaint case on the appellants and in proceeding ex-parte and deciding the case as such against the appellants. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the notice was not sent by the usual mode of service i.e. by Registered A.D. Post and instead the notice was sent for service through the other agency. The learned Counsel for the appellants, thus, contended that a reasonable opportunity of hearing was denied to the appellants, who have been proceeded ex-parte without the District Forum-II ensuring about the due service of notice on the appellants. The learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contended that a presumption would be raised in favour of due service of notice on the appellants/opposite parties inasmuch as the notice had been sent at the correct address mentioned in the complaint case and it is at the same address that the complainants have received the copy of the order passed by the District Forum-II. We have gone through the record of the complaint case. There is a notice addressed to the appellants/opposite parties. The person who took their notice for service first made an endorsement in Hindi about his visit to the given address for handing over the summon. This endorsement was subsequently scored of. Thereafter another endorsement in English was made to the effect “Summons have been served”. The person who appears to have made this endorsement put down his signatures below the endorsement. It is, however, not decipherable as to who was that person who had made an endorsement and what was his status in the case to effect service of notice to the appellants/opposite parties. It may also be mentioned that there are no signatures of the appellants/opposite parties on the back of the notice whereas the said endorsement in English about the summons being served has been made. We find from perusal of the front portion of the notice that the name of one Rajiv Kumar has been mentioned at two places. The learned Counsel for the respondent, however, could not establish the identity of the said Rajiv Kumar particularly with the appellants/opposite parties. In nutshell, the report regarding the summons having been served is quite vague and the same is not accompanied with the signatures of the authorised persons of the appeal who were sought to be served with the notice. Under these circumstances, we find ourselves unable to rely on such a report regarding the service. We may add that since there is a report regarding service of the notice, hence the question of raising any presumption regarding service cannot be raised, as has been argued by the learned Counsel for the respondent. Since, the appellants have categorically stated about the non-service of notice on them, presumption if any which could be raised against them regarding the service stood rebutted.

4. In our considered view, the District Forum-II fell into error in upholding the service of notice on the appellants/opposite parties and in proceeding the complaint case ex-parte against them. Since the appellants/opposite parties had no notice of the complaint case and were not served with the notices, they had, individually, no opportunity of defending themselves in the complaint case. The interest of justice requires that a reasonable opportunity of hearing should be afforded to the appellants and particularly in the circumstances mentioned above. Consequently, this appeal is allowed and the order passed by the District Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh is set aside. The complaint case is remanded for decision afresh with a direction that a reasonable opportunity of hearing shall be afforded to the appellants who shall filed their written statement to the complaint case and the parties shall be allowed a reasonable opportunity of leading their evidence. Since this complaint case is already remained pending for a fairly long period, we deem it appropriate that the District Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh shall take all possible steps to ensure its early disposal which in any event shall not exceed three months from the date of receipt of the record. The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh on 29.1.2001.