M/S. PROXIMA CREATIONS THROUGH ITS PARTNERS, SHRI GAUTAM VISHWANAND PASHANKAR, RESIDING AT S NO. 364/65/2, JANGLI MAHARAJ ROAD, ABOVE HONDA SHOW ROOM, SHIVAJI NAGAR, PUNE Vs. ABHIJEET D SHIRPURE AND 2 ORS. THROUGH THEIR DULY AUTHRIZED REPRESENTATIVE/POA HOLDER, MR. SHISHIR V. DIVKAR, C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This bunch of seven Appeals under Sec. 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), by a Real Estate Developer, is directed against a common order, dated 11.08.2015, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Pune (for short "the State Commission") in Consumer Complaints No.185 to 192 of 2015.

(2.) By the impugned order, the State Commission has taken ex-parte proceedings against the Appellant as, at the time of hearing, despite service of notice by newspaper publication, the Appellant had remained unrepresented before the State Commission.

(3.) The main grievance of the Appellant is that the order passed by the State Commission on 12.05.2015, permitting the Complainants to effect service of notice in the Complaints on the Appellant by substituted means, viz. newspaper publication, suffered material irregularity, inasmuch as, before passing order to that effect, the State Commission had failed to record its satisfaction that the Appellant, the Opposite party in the Complaints, could not be served by ordinary process and/or it was avoiding service of notice. To buttress his stand, learned Counsel has referred us to the report on service of notice by the Postal Department (page 117), dated 02.05.2015, which shows that the envelope containing the notice issued by the State Commission, was received back with the remark, 'Article Undelivered (refused)'. It is the say of the learned Counsel that when the envelope was 'undelivered' with the remark "refused", the same should be available on the record of the State Commission with the refusal endorsement, which is not the case. It is asserted that no such undelivered envelope is available on the record.