ATUL SRIVASTAVA Vs. PRADEEP KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 4.2.2011 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, 'the State Commission') in first appeal No. 1677 of 2011, the original opposite parties have filed the present petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appeal before the State Commission was filed against an order dated 14.09.2010 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Sonepat in complaint No. 427 of 2010 by which order, the District Consumer Forum had allowed the complaint ex parte purportedly on the ground that the opposite parties remained unrepresented on record and had no defence. The District Consumer Forum accordingly directed the opposite parties to refund the deposited amount of Rs. 5 lakh with interest @9 per annum w. e. f. the date of deposit till its realisatin besides a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- as the cost of litigation. The State Commission dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order passed by the District Consumer Forum.

(2.) The facts and circumstances which led to the filing of the complaint and passing of the impugned order are amply-noted in the order of the State Commission and need no repetition at our end.

(3.) We have heard Mr. Pritpal Nijjar, learned counsel representing the petitioners and Mr. Sanjay Singh, learned counsel representing the respondents and have considered their respective submissions. Learned counsel for the petitioners would assail the orders passed by the fora below primarily on the ground that the petitioners herein were not given any opportunity to contest the complaint and put their defence in as much as no notice of the complaint was ever received by them and, therefore, the orders passed by the fora below are legally unsustainable and are liable to be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-complainant has supported the orders passed by the fora below and has urged that the orders and directions given by the District Consumer Forum, as affirmed by the State Commission, are eminently justified having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case.