Suresh Chand Rathore vs Surender Singh Yadav

COUNSEL for the parties heard.

THE District Forum ordered to proceed ex -parte against the OP3, Sh. Surender Singh Yadav, Respondent herein and Sh. Surender Kumar - OP. No. 1/Respondent No. 2 herein. The Forum decreed the claim of the complainant ex -parte vide order dated 08.02.2011. An appeal was preferred before the State Commission.

THE order of the State Commission goes to show that the OPs 1 and 3 were proceeded against ex -parte only on the basis of affidavit filed by the complainant, mentioning therein that they had refused to accept the notice. The State Commission came to the conclusion that they were not properly served in this case. The State Commission set aside the ex -parte proceedings and remanded the case for fresh decision in accordance with law. Aggrieved by that order, the complainant has filed the Revision Petition. Counsel for the petitioners contended that there was delay of 196 days in filing the appeal before the State Commission. That delay was not properly explained and the State Commission did not pass any order on the application for condonation of delay. Counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention towards the case of this Commission reported in Abdul Mannan Vs. Branch Manager, LIC of India, Revision Petition No.1353 of 2013, decided on 30.01.2014 and the judgment of the Allahabad High Court reported in Writ B 39151 of 2012, dated 13.08.2012.

WE are of the considered view that the facts of the above said authorities are wee bit different from the facts of the instant case. When it stands established that the OPs 1 and 3 were never served, or their service could not establish beyond doubts, the question of condonation of delay in moving the application pales into insignificance. It is the complainant and nobody else who is to carry the ball in proving that the OPs 1 and 3 were served in this case. His mere affidavit that they had refused to accept the service, carries exiguous value, particularly, when the OPs 1 and 3 have stated in their affidavits that they were not served in this case.

THIS is well known maxim, "no man should be condemned unheard". "Whatever disagreement there be as to the scope of the phrase, ''due process of law'', there can be no doubt, ''due to it, embraces the fundamental consideration of a fair trial, with opportunity to be heard".

CONSEQUENTLY , we find no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission and dismiss the revision petition.