1. These first appeals have been filed under section 19 read with section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 21.07.2016, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ''the State Commission'') in consumer complaints No. 127/2016 & 128/2016, vide which the appellant was ordered to be proceeded against exparte.
2. In FA/1219/2016, concerned with CC No. 127/2016, the order dated 21.07.2016 passed by the State Commission reads as follows:-
" For the complainants : Sh. S.S. Gill, AdvocateNotice was sent to the OP on 24.05.2016 AD has not been received back either served or unserved. In case registered letter properly addressed is not received back within a period of 30 days, then there is presumption of service. None has appeared on behalf of the OP. OP is, thus, proceeded against ex-parte.Put-up the file on 19.09.2016 for ex-parte evidence of the complainant. "
3. In FA/1220/2016, concerned with CC No. 128/2016, the order dated 21.07.2016 passed by the State Commission reads as follows:-
" For the complainants : Sh. S.S. Gill, AdvocateNotice was sent to OP No.1 on 24.05.2016 through Registered post A.D received duly signed by OP No.1. None has appeared on behalf of OP No.1. OP No.1 is, thus, proceeded against ex-parte.OP No.2 has appeared through Sh.Deepak Jain, Advocate and filed written reply alongwith application for extension of time to extend the time of 15 days to take on record their reply. As per application, their service was effected on 24.05.2016 under Section 13(1) (a) the period to file the reply is 30 days with provision of 15 days to extend the period with the intervention of this Commission. In case 15 days period is extended then reply be filed by OP No.2 is within the prescribed period. Accordingly, 15 days'' time is extended to OP No.2 to file the written reply and reply filed by OP No.2 is ordered to be taken on record.Now to come up on 19.09.2016 for evidence of the complainant. "
4. It is seen from above that in CC No. 127/2016, since the notice sent to appellant/OP-1 on 24/05/2016, was not received back, either served or unserved, within a period of 30 days, the State Commission has drawn the presumption that the notice was duly served upon the appellant/OP. However, in CC No. 128/2016, the service of the notice was affected upon the appellant/OP, but they did not appear before the State Commission, and hence were proceeded against exparte. The learned counsel for the appellant in both the cases has taken the plea that the main office of the appellant was situated at Delhi. They have a site office at SCO No. 6, Sector 69 Mohali, where a very few employees are working, and the said office remained closed on a number of occasions. As per the agreement entered between the parties, the address of the office at Delhi only is mentioned. It was, therefore, the duty of the complainants to have quoted their address at Delhi, while filing the complaint, so that the State Commission could have sent notice to their address at Delhi. The learned counsel has further argued that as per the plot buyers'' agreement, the PACL India is the promoter of the Project. The PACL have their registered office at Jaipur and corporate office at Delhi. The PACL had taken steps to seek the necessary clearances/permissions/licenses from the concerned authorities. The complainant should have made PACL as a necessary party in the consumer complaint. The learned counsel argued that they were not the owners of the Project, rather their job was to carry out the construction only.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents, however, argued that the appellants have already admitted that they had a working office at Mohali. The complainants had, therefore, rightly quoted the address at Mohali in the consumer complaint. In FA No. 1220/2016, the said notice had even been served at the Mohali address. The learned counsel further argued that as per the agreement, the appellants, Pearl Infrastructure Private Limited were the parties, with whom the said agreement was executed. There was no need, therefore, to make PACL as a party in the case.
6. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.
7. A perusal of the agreement between the parties indicates that in CC No. 127/2016, plot buyers'' agreement was entered on 13.05.2011 between the appellant, Pearl Infrastructure Project Limited and the complainants, Brij Bala & Krishan Kumar and in CC No. 128/2006, plot buyers'' agreement was executed between the appellant and Joginder singh Minhas and Pushpa Minhas on 26.05.2011. In both the agreements, the address of the appellant at Delhi only had been given. It is felt, therefore, that while filing the consumer complaints, the complainants should have mentioned the address at Delhi also, in addition to the address of the sub-office at Mohali. In any case, in CC No. 128/2016, the notice has been stated to be delivered at the Mohali address, but the appellants were not present before the State Commission, and they have not advanced any cogent reasons for their absence, even in the grounds of appeal.
8. In so far as the plea of the appellant that the complaint should have been filed against the PACL, the same has no force, because the agreement itself has been signed between the appellants and the complainants.
9. Considering the averments on behalf of the parties, it is felt that it shall be in the interest of justice that the appellants are provided a chance to plead their case before the State Commission for proper adjudication of the issues involved. These two appeals are accepted, therefore, subject to payment of 25,000/- as costs in each case in the "Consumer Legal Aid Account" of this Commission, within a period of four weeks from today. The orders passed by the State Commission on 21.07.2016 in both the cases are set aside and the appellants are allowed to join the proceedings in the consumer complaints before the State Commission. It is further directed that in so far as the entitlement of the appellants for filing the written statements is concerned, the State Commission shall take decision in accordance with the provisions of section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the recent judgments passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court on this issue from time to time.
