B.C.GUPTA,J. - (1.)The challenge in this first appeal, filed by the opposite party (OP) has been made to the impugned order dated 20.07.2017, passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") in Consumer Complaint No. C-76/17, which reads as follows:-
"20.07.2017 C-76/17 Present: Sh. Shekhar Nanawati, Counsel for the complainant .

None for the OP despite service by RAD. It is proceeded exparte.

Complainant to file evidence by affidavit within eight weeks.

Re-notify on 19.01.2018.

(O.P. Gupta) Member (Judicial) Bench-2

(Anil Srivastava) Member Bench-2 1.00 P.M.

At this stage, Ms. Mandakini Sharma, Adv. has appeared for OP. She is apprised of the above proceedings.

(O.P. Gupta) Member (Judicial) Bench-2

(Anil Srivastava) Member Bench-2"

(2.)It has been stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that during proceedings in consumer complaint no. C-76/17, filed by the present respondent/complainant Michael Bazira, the State Commission passed an order on 13.02.2017, which reads as follows:-
Present :Sh.ShekharNanavaty, Counsel for the Complainant.

Heard on admission.

Admitted.

Issue notice to the OP through registered AD cover directing to file written version within 30 days from the receipt of copy of complaint.

Re-notify on 20.07.2017.

(O.P. Gupta) Member (Judicial) Bench-2

(Anil Srivastava) Member Bench-2"

(3.)The learned counsel stated that in pursuance of order dated 13.02.2017, a notice was sent to the appellant/OP by the State Commission on 16.05.2017, asking them to appear before that Commission in person, or through authorised agent/pleader on 20.07.2017. They were also directed to file their complete reply of defence within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the complaint. According to the appellant/OP, they received the said notice on 02.06.2017, but copy of the complaint had not been appended with the said notice. On the date of hearing i.e. 20.07.2017, they could not appear before the State Commission on first call and they were ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte. The learned counsel stated that as recorded by the State Commission itself, they appeared before them that very day at 1.00 pm, but still the State Commission proceeded ex-parte against them. The learned counsel vehemently argued that since they had not been provided a copy of the complaint, there was no question of filing any reply to the same. In the interest of justice, ex-parte order against them should be set aside and they should be allowed to join the proceedings and also allowed to file the reply to the complaint.