Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 16.7.2010 passed by U. T. Chandigarh, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, he State Commission in complaint case No. 23 of 2010. The complaint before the State Commission was filed by the respondent-complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant-builder in not accepting his request for the allotment of 400 sq. yards plot on non-preferential basis, in Mohali Hills, Sector 105, Mohali or in the alternative for refund of the amount so deposited by the complainant. It would appear that despite the issuance and service of the notice on the complaint, there was no representation on behalf of the opposite party-builder and it was at a some later stage i.e. 12.7.2010 when the matter had already been heard on behalf of the complainant, a prayer was made from the side of the opposite party-builder for setting aside the order of ex-parte proceedings passed by the State Commission, which prayer was allowed by the State Commission and builder counsel was granted an opportunity to make his submissions -3- whereafter the complaint was decided by the impugned order in the following manner:- 7. In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP as under :- (i) To allot a plot to the complainants as per the Application Form (Annexure C-1) filled by them measuring 400 sq. yard in Mohali Hills, Sector 105, Mohali on no-preferential basis or in alternative, to refund the entire amount deposited by the complainants with it along with interest @9% per annum from the date of deposits till actual payment. (ii) To pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainants as consolidated compensation for the physical harassment and mental agony as well as financial loss which they suffered due the deficiency in service on the part of OP. The OP is directed to comply with the above directions issued at Para 7 within a period of two months failing which, the total amount directed to be refunded vide direction (1) and the amount of compensation of Rs.50,000/- awarded at direction (ii) shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of order till actual payment. 8. The complainants are also awarded a sum of Rs.5,100/- as costs of litigation to be paid by the OP. Aggrieved by the said order, the original opposite party has filed the present appeal. 2. We have heard Mr. H. L. Tiku, learned Sr. Advocate representing the appellant and Mr. P. B. A. Srinivasan, learned counsel representing the respondents and have given our thoughtful -4- consideration to their respective submissions. Besides assailing the impugned order passed on merits, Mr. H. L. Tiku, learned Sr. Advocate would assail it on the ground that no reasonable opportunity of hearing was granted to the appellant-builder to put his written version of defence and his evidence in response to the averments and allegations made by the complainant and the evidence so produced by him. He submits that once the State Commission was persuaded and had agreed to set aside the order of ex-parte proceedings, as a requirement of natural justice, the State Commission ought to have granted an opportunity to the appellant-builder to put his defence and evidence on record which the State Commission failed to do and which has resulted into miscarriage of justice. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the respondent-complainant supports the order on the ground that it was for the appellant-builder to have put in his defence at the appropriate stage and he cannot make a grievance now once the matter has been answered by the State Commission. 3. Having considered the respective pleas and the gamut of controversy in this regard, we are of the view that it would be -5- expedient in the interest of justice to remand back the complaint to the State Commission for deciding the same afresh in accordance with law, after giving opportunity to the appellant-builder to put his written version of defence and evidence, in any, in support of his plea, which will be subject to right of rebuttal of the complainant. This indulgence is being granted to the appellant on payment of cost of Rs. 25,000/- to the respondent. The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 10.1.2011 on which date, the appellant-builder shall file his written version of defence to the complaint and pay costs whereafter the State Commission shall decide the complaint expeditiously. Parties are left to bear their own costs.