RUDRA BUILDWELL CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. & ANR. OFFICE AT: 309, PADMA TOWER Vs. DHARAMPAL R/O. 5/181, DAKSHAN PURI EXTN., DR. AMBEDKAR NAGAR, NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed, challenging the interim order dated 22.02.2016, passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’), by which, the present appellant/OP/builder was ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte. It has been stated in the said order that the appellant/OP did not appear before the State Commission on 22.02.2016 despite service. The State Commission also directed the complainant to file ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit within four weeks along with the written arguments. A notice of the memo of appeal was sent to the respondent/complainant, who put in appearance through counsel. The learned counsel for both the parties were heard.

(2.) It is contended by the appellant/OP/builder in the grounds of appeal that after issuing of notice by the State Commission in consumer complaint no. 182/2015, Dharm Pal Vs. Rudra Buildwell Constructions Pvt. Ltd. , they were duly served with the notice sent by the State Commission. However, a lady employee of the OP office, who received the notice at the reception, resigned from the office and hence, the said notice remained unattended. When the said notice was found by the new employee on 26.02.2016, the date fixed by the State Commission had already passed. The non-appearance of the appellant before the State Commission was neither intentional nor wilful. The learned counsel for the appellant stated that the ex-parte order made against them by the State Commission on 22.02.2016 should be set aside. The learned counsel for the respondent, however, stated that the order passed by the State Commission was in accordance with law.

(3.) I have examined the material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me.