RAVINDER GOEL Vs. DEV RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Taken up through video conferencing.

(2.) The dispute is in relation to non-payment of the maturity value of a fixed deposit made by the complainants with the opposite parties.

(3.) The District Commission, in its Order of 13.12.2019, has specifically mentioned that notice was served on the two opposite parties, the opposite party no. 2 appeared in person but thereafter both the opposite parties were proceeded against ex parte. That is to say, the opposite parties were aware of the case before the District Commission, one of them put in appearance, and then both chose to absent themselves in the District Commission.