NAVNIT DHIRJA LAL SETH Vs. NITIN N.MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT No.1 in person is present. Respondent is absent. Respondent is duly served with a notice issued by this Commission. There is a report to that effect downloaded from the website of postal department, namely India Post and, therefore, service of notice to the Respondent is declared complete under Section 28A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

(2.) HEARD the Appellant No.1. Perused the record.

(3.) THIS appeal filed by the Appellants/Complainants is directed as against an order dated 13.4.2012 passed by the District Forum, Mumbai Suburban District in Consumer Complaint No.105 of 2009. By the said order, the District Forum has partly allowed the complaint and directed the Respondent/Opponent to refund to the Appellants/Complainants an amount of Rs.50,000 together with interest thereon @ 12% p.a., with effect from 12.5.2008 besides costs of Rs.5,000. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order, the Appellants/Complainants have preferred this appeal. This appeal was admitted by the State Commission on 4.7.2012 and a notice after admission was directed to be issued to the Respondent. Accordingly, notice was .dispatched to the Respondent on 13.7.2012 and the notice was kept returnable on 16.8.2012. However, the envelope which was sent by post to the Respondent was not received back. Similarly, the postal acknowledgement receipt which in normal course should have been received by the State Commission was also not received. Therefore, the State Commissions Officer tracked the record on the website of postal department, namely: India Post and obtained information in respect of Postal Article No.RM09536049i IN namely: ''the postal communication of the notice of this appeal which was sent to the Respondent. It is revealed from that the said envelope sent by post was delivered by postal authorities to the Respondent on 20.7.2012. Said report obtained from the website is part of record of the State Commission. Inspite of such service of notice the Respondent has not appeared and, therefore, there is no other alternative but to proceed with the hearing of the appeal in absence of the Respondent.