IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 24365 of 2007 Between: Sri Jayaprakash S/o late A. Kishan Das ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Sri Dikonda Gangadhar S/o Gopal and three others .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent No.: The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Sri Justice GHULAM MOHAMMED) This Writ Petition has been filed to declare the order dated 25.10.2007 passed by the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Hyderabad-4th respondent herein in F.A.No. 1922 of 2005 as illegal and to quash the same. Though served with notice, none appears for the first respondent. Brief facts of the case are that the first respondent herein filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nizamabad, seeking directions to the opposite party-petitioner herein to pay Rs. 27,500/- with interest at 24% per annum from September, 2003 and also to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation as the first respondent-complainant joined in the chit as subscriber on 23.4.2003 by paying 17 monthly instalments till September 2003 totalling Rs. 27,500/-. As the opposite party-petitioner herein tried to settle the matter on the pretext of bankruptcy, the first respondent-complainant stopped payment of further instalments and demanded to refund the amount paid by him and got issued a legal notice to the petitioner- opposite party for payment of the said amount of Rs. 27,500/-. But the petitioner-opposite party managed to get the said notice returned unserved. Aggrieved by the same, the complainant-first respondent approached the District Forum. Since the notice sent to the opposite party-petitioner herein returned with a postal endorsement ‘unclaimed’, District Forum held the service as sufficient. It is stated that even on the date of hearing, the opposite party-petitioner herein was not present before the District Forum and he was set ex-parte. The District Forum based on the pleadings put forward before it, allowed the compliant directing the opposite party-petitioner herein to pay Rs. 27,500/- to the complainant-first respondent with interest at 9% per annum from May 2005 till the date of realization, besides costs of Rs. 500/-. Aggrieved by the same, the opposite party-petitioner herein preferred an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appellate authority-A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Hyderabad held that there are no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the District Forum and dismissed the appeal by confirming the order of the District Forum and directed the opposite party-appellant-petitioner to comply with the order of the District Forum within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Being aggrieved by the same, the opposite party- appellant-petitioner preferred this writ petition. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the order passed by the District Forum is an ex parte order as the petitioner was not given any opportunity to contest the matter and, therefore the order has to be set aside. As seen from the order, the District Forum observed that as the notice sent to the petitioner-opposite party returned with a postal endorsement ‘unclaimed’, the same is sufficient for service of notice. We are unable to accept the observation made by the District Forum. When once the matter is to be decided on merits, the party has to be given an opportunity before making it liable for payment with interest. But instead, the District Forum without giving any opportunity, straight away directed the petitioner-opposite party to pay Rs. 27,500/- to the first respondent herein with interest at 9% per annum from May, 2005 till the date of realization, besides costs of Rs. 500/-. On appeal the same was confirmed by the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Hyderabad-4th respondent herein. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nizamabad for adjudication of the matter afresh. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nizamabad, is directed to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity to both sides and by fixing the date for hearing as 31.8.2009, after serving notice to the first respondent herein and applicant therein. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner undertakes to inform the first respondent herein and applicant therein to appear before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nizamabd on 31.8.2009 at 10.30 AM, failing which, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nizamabad shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law. In pursuance of the interim direction granted by this Court on 21.11.2007, it is stated that the entire amount was deposited by the petitioner. Hence, the said deposit shall be subject to the result of the consumer case before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nizamabad. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ______________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 03.07.2009 KA Note: Office is directed to mark a copy to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nizamabad. ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. The President AP State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Anandnagar colony,Khairatabad, Hyderabad 2. Two CCs to G.P. for Civil Supplies, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. 3. 2 CD copies.