ORAL ORDER PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER 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. Shekhar Nanavaty, 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. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent, who appeared on notice, stated that they had no objection, if the appellants were allowed to file the reply after imposing heavy costs upon them. 5. The record of the State Commission was called in order to know whether a copy of the admitted complaint was sent by the State Commission to the opposite parties, as per the requirements of section 13(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. A perusal of the said record as well as the notice issued by the State Commission nowhere indicates that the copy of the paper book was sent to the opposite party. In order to ascertain the facts, the position was enquired on telephone from the Registrar of the State Commission. The said Registrar confirmed that as per the procedure followed in the Delhi State Commission, copy of the paper book was never sent alongwith the notice to the opposite parties. Such copies were supplied to them on their first appearance before the State Commission. 6. From the facts on record, it is made out that the appellant/OP did appear before the State Commission on 20.07.2017, the date fixed for hearing at 1.00 pm, but not on the first call. It shall, therefore, be in the interest of justice that they are allowed to join the proceedings, as they had put in their appearance within the working hours on the date of hearing fixed by the Commission. The order of the State Commission dated 20.07.2017, proceeding ex-parte against the appellant/OP is, therefore, set aside and they are allowed to join the proceedings in the consumer complaint before the State Commission. 7. It is further stated that since there is no evidence that copy of the paper book was ever supplied to the appellant/OP, the said Commission shall ensure that a complete copy of the admitted complaint alongwith documents is supplied to them on their first appearance before the State Commission. Thereafter, the appellant/OP shall be at liberty to file their written version to the said complaint within the period prescribed under section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 8. The appeal is, therefore, allowed, the impugned order of the State Commission is set aside and the said Commission is directed to proceed further as stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. | 
