1. THIS is an appeal against the order of the District Forum directing the appellant to pay Rs. 80,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 3rd September, 1985 till date of payment within one month from the date of the order failing which section under the Consumer Protection Act would be taken against him.
2. BRIEFLY, the facts are that the respondent filed claim against the appellant for recovery of Rs. 80,000/- before the District Forum. The President of the District Forum passed a decree for recovery of that amount with interest on 27th March, 1989 against the appellant. Aggrieved against that order the appellant came to this State Commission. The Commission vide order dated 7th December, 1989 set-aside the said order of the District Forum and remanded the case for fresh trial to it. The District Forum again passed a decree against the appellant for recovery of the amount and interest as mentioned above. The defendant appellant has come in appeal against that order to this Commission.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that after the remand the appellant was not informed of the date of hearing by the District Forum and was proceeded against it ex-parte though no service was affected on it. According to the learned counsel the District Forum could not decide the matter without informing the appellant about the date of hearing and giving an opportunity to file reply and lead evidence.
We have duly considered the argument and find substance therein. We have seen the record and find that twice notices were issued by the District Forum, once on 2nd January, 1990 for 1st May, 1990 and second time on 2nd May, 1990 for 25th May, 1990. Both the notices were not served upon the respondent. However, the District Forum proceeded against it ex-parte on 25th May, 1990 stating that the defendant (now appellant) was not present inspite of notice. It is well settled that unless the opposite party is served no decree can be passed against it. It was the duty of the District Forum to have served the respondent before a decree was passed against it. If it could not be served under registered cover, it should have been served in some other recognised way. But it has not been done. Ex parte order of the learned District Forum is, therefore, liable to be set-aside.
3. THE appellant has filed an application that it could not get a copy of the order inspite of its best effort and consequently, it be allowed to file the appeal without copy of the order. We have seen from the record that the appellant made an application for inspection of the record and supplying a copy of the order to it. THE District Forum however, did not allow the inspection of the record nor supplied copy of the order to it. In the circumstances, we allow the appellant to file appeal without certified copy of the order.
For the aforesaid reasons, we accept the appeal and remand the case to the District Forum for deciding the matter afresh after giving the parties an opportunity to lead evidence and to the appellant an opportunity to file the written statement. Parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 4th October, 1990. On that date the appellant (defendant) shall file the written statement. The District Forum is directed to decide the case expeditiously. Appeal allowed.
