ANJANISUT MARBLES Vs. MANJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 22.07.2014, whereby the said Commission dismissed an application filed by the petitioner seeking the condonation of delay of 1881 days in filing an appeal against the order passed by the District Forum on 12.01.2009 in complaint no. 215/2008. The petitioner was proceeded exparte before the District Forum since the process sent to him by post was received back with the endorsement 'unclaimed'. The publication, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, was carried out in Dainik Bhaskar newspaper.

(2.) We specifically asked the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the address of the petitioner given on the envelope was correct or not. The learned counsel very fairly stated that the address given in the complaint was the same as is the address given in this revision petition. Therefore, it is obvious that the notice to the petitioner was sent at a correct address. When a notice is sent by post at a correct address and it is returned with endorsement 'unclaimed', it is obvious that the addressee had either refused or deliberately avoided to accept the service, despite being available at the time the envelope is sought to be delivered to him. This by itself may constitute sufficient service upon the petitioner. Moreover, in the case before us, the petitioner was also served by publication in Dainik Bhaskar, which is a national Daily. Therefore, we cannot accept that the petitioner was not aware of the filing of the complaint before the District Forum. We are satisfied that the petitioner was fully aware of the complaint and he deliberately either avoided or declined to accept the notice when sent to him by post.

(3.) It is stated in the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal that the petitioner had come to know about exparte order when he came to know about issuance of non-bailable warrants against him by the District Forum. The application, however, does not disclose how the petitioner had come to know about the issuance of non-bailable warrants against him. The petitioner does not claim having received any notice from the District Forum before the non-bailable warrants came to be issued against him. He specifically stated in para no. 4 of the application that no summon in the execution was ever served upon him. There could be no occasion for anyone to inform the petitioner about issue of non-bailable warrants of his arrest by the District Forum. Therefore, it is obvious that the petitioner has not approached the State Commission with full facts and clean hands. He has not given correct information as to how he had come to know of the exparte order passed against him. The aforesaid stand is yet another indicator that in fact he was fully aware of the proceedings before the District Forum and was avoiding to put appearance till the time he came to know of the issuance of non-bailable warrants of his arrest against him.