NCDRC Sets Aside Ex Parte Order Against GLADA For Violating Principles Of Natural Justice; Remands Case To State Commission
Pranav B Prem
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi, comprising AVM J. Rajendra, AVSM VSM (Presiding Member) and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta (Member), has held that the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s decision to proceed ex parte against the Greater Ludhiana Area Development Authority (GLADA) was unsustainable and violative of the principles of natural justice. The Bench observed that there was no proof of service of notice on the opposite parties before they were placed ex parte, which deprived them of a fair opportunity to defend themselves or file their written version before the State Commission.
Background
The complaint was filed by Rajwinder Kaur before the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, alleging deficiency in service by GLADA. She had been allotted a residential plot measuring 400 sq. yards at the Sugar Mill Site, Jagraon, for a total consideration of ₹34,00,000, after paying the initial 25% amount of ₹8,50,000. As per the allotment letter dated 29.08.2015, the authority had promised to hand over possession of the plot within 90 days, subject to the completion of development works. Relying on this assurance, the complainant deposited the remaining 75% amount, ₹25,50,000, in a single installment and was issued a ‘No Dues Certificate’ on 05.09.2016.
However, despite full payment, possession was not handed over, allegedly due to the non-completion of approach roads, sewerage connections, and boundary walls. The complainant claimed that repeated requests to the authorities were ignored and eventually sought a refund of ₹34,00,000 with 12% interest, compensation for mental harassment, and litigation costs. On 07.12.2017, the State Commission proceeded ex parte against GLADA, concluding that the authority had not filed its written version within 30 days of service of notice. By its final order dated 13.02.2018, the State Commission directed GLADA to:
Refund ₹34,00,000 to the complainant with 12% annual interest;
Pay ₹50,000 as compensation for mental harassment; and
Pay ₹25,000 as litigation costs.
Aggrieved by the ex parte decision, GLADA filed the present first appeal before the NCDRC.
Appellant’s Submissions (GLADA)
GLADA argued that the ex parte order was illegal, as it had not been properly served with notice of the complaint. It pointed out that no acknowledgment or proof of delivery of the notice issued on 25.10.2017 was available on record. It contended that the State Commission wrongly presumed service and proceeded ex parte within 43 days, even though the date of actual receipt of notice was never verified. It was submitted that this violated the basic tenets of natural justice, as the appellants were not given a chance to file their written version or rebut the complainant’s allegations.
On merits, GLADA argued that development works were completed as early as 30.09.2015, including water supply and sewerage, and that possession was deemed to have been delivered under the terms of the allotment letter. It asserted that the complainant failed to take possession and could not claim a refund after voluntarily paying the full amount. It was also submitted that as a statutory development authority, GLADA operated under government regulations and could not be equated with a private builder.
Respondent’s Submissions
The complainant’s counsel argued that despite full payment, no actual possession was offered due to incomplete development work. It was contended that the authority’s plea of “deemed possession” was untenable, as Clause 4 of the allotment letter clearly required GLADA to hand over possession within 90 days of issuance. The respondent maintained that the ex parte order was justified as GLADA failed to appear despite due service of notice by registered post and that the relief granted by the State Commission was appropriate considering the delay and deficiency.
Findings of the Commission
The NCDRC noted that although the State Commission had issued notice to the opposite parties on 25.10.2017 by registered post, no acknowledgment or proof of delivery was available on record. Despite this, the State Commission presumed service and placed GLADA ex parte on 07.12.2017 — merely 43 days after the notice was issued. The Bench observed:“While there can be a presumption of delivery of registered post, there can be no presumption of the date of receipt. The proceedings by the State Commission were thus premature and in violation of the principles of natural justice.”
The Commission emphasized that denying the appellants an opportunity to explain the date of receipt of notice and to file a written version amounted to procedural irregularity. It held that such an approach deprived the appellants of a fair hearing, which is a fundamental component of natural justice. Accordingly, the NCDRC set aside the ex parte order, holding that the State Commission’s assumption of service and closure of the right to file a reply were unsustainable in law.
Order
The NCDRC allowed the appeal, set aside the ex parte order dated 13.02.2018, and remitted the matter to the Punjab State Consumer Commission for fresh adjudication. It directed the State Commission to reconsider the issue of service of notice, allow GLADA to file its written version, and dispose of the complaint afresh within three months. The NCDRC reaffirmed that fair opportunity of hearing is a cornerstone of natural justice and that ex parte proceedings without proof of notice service are legally unsustainable. It clarified that while registered post raises a presumption of delivery, it cannot establish the date of receipt, which must be verified before proceeding ex parte.
Casue Title: Greater Ludhiana Area Development Authority vs Rajwinder Kaur
Case No: First Appeal No. 1127 Of 2018
Coram: AVM J. Rajendra, AVSM VSM (Presiding Member), Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta (Member)
