1. Heard the learned Counsel for both the parties.

2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 25.7.2018 passed by the State Commission in C.C. Nos. 133 and 311 of 2018 wherein the OP Nos. 1 -3 (present appellants) have been proceeded ex parte on the basis of ‘deemed service’ under Section 28(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

3. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the appellants that no notice was ever served upon them, therefore, presumption of service is not correct. He further states that no intention of non-appearance can be attributed to the appellants as they were appearing in other two similar cases bearing C.C. No. 130 of 2018 and 132 of 2018 and when the appellants appeared on the date fixed in these two cases i.e. 23.8.2018, they came to know about the ex parte order passed by the State Commission in C.C. Nos. 133 and 311 of 2018. Accordingly, the present appeal has been filed.

4. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for respondent states that even in the other two cases that have been referred by the learned Counsel for the appellants, there was some cost imposed on them and they intentionally not appeared in the present C.C. Nos. 133 and 311 of 2018. He further states that time of nine months has already elapsed since February, 2018 when the complaint case was filed. The appellants only want to delay the matter to deny the justice to the respondents.

5. Learned Counsel for the appellants states that no cost was ever imposed on the appellant and that they filed the written statement in time which was also accepted by the State Commission.

6. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both the parties and have perused the record.

7. Though the presumption u/s 28(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is legal, however, looking at the services of the postal department, this presumption can be misleading and detrimental to the parties. Therefore, as the State Commission and District Forum have no power to review their own orders and parties have to get relief in this regard from the higher Forum, the State Commission and District Forum are required to be more careful while passing ex parte order against any party under Section 28(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in the overall interest of speedy justice. In this spirit, the order of the State Commission dated 25.7.2018 qua the appellants is set aside, subject to payment of Rs. 10,000 to be paid to complainant/respondent No. 1 by the appellants before the State Commission.

8. The appellants are allowed to file written statement before the State Commission within thirty days from today, subject to payment of further cost of Rs. 20,000 to be paid to the complainant/respondent No. 1, by the appellants in the light of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. and Another v. M/s. Mampee Timbers and Hardwares Pvt. Ltd. and Another, Civil Appeal No. ....of 2017 (D. No. 2365 of 2017) decided on 10.2.2017, wherein Consumer Fora have been authorized to accept written statement filed with delay in appropriate cases on suitable terms. Cost of Rs. 20,000 be paid to the complainant/respondent No. 1 by way of demand draft on or before the next date of hearing before the State Commission. The State Commission shall have the power to extend this time if needed.

9. The State Commission shall proceed with the case and accept the written statement file

d on behalf of the appellants only after the total cost of Rs. 30,000 has been paid to the complainant/respondent No. 1. 10. FA Nos. 1636 and 1640 of 2018 stand disposed of accordingly. 11. Registry is directed to ensure that this order is sent to the concerned State Commission before the next date of hearing. Order be given Dasti. Appeal allowed.