State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra: In an appeal against the order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (‘DCDRC’) restraining written statement of Decathlon while it complained of notice served in an improper manner, Justice S.P. Tavade, SCDRC Maharashtra President and Poonam V. Maharshi, SCDRC member allowed the same while stating that notice should have been served at the registered office.
Factual Background
Decathlon, a company incorporated under the Provisions of Companies Act, 1956, preferred the instant appeal against order passed on 20-01-2023 in the absence of any written statement order passed against them.
The respondent preferred a complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against Decathlon. It was alleged that the notice of complaint was not properly served to Decathlon on its registered address at Bangalore which was duly mentioned in the title clause of the complaint, and that despite the same was made as one of the opponents in the cause title. Decathlon came to know about the complaint through its Store Office in Mumbai, and thereafter they filed an appearance on 15-12-2022 and sought time for reply. The next date was 10-01-2023 when Decathlon moved an application for taking the said written statement on record which was objected to by the complainant. DCDRC allowed the objection and order was passed on 20-01-2023 due to 5 days’ delay in filing the written statement, hence, the instant appeal.
SCDRC noticed that perusal of record reflected that complaint was admitted on 14-10-2022 and complainant filed report of service of notice on 10-01-2023 showing duly served notice on 21-10-2022 at a Mumbai store of Decathlon, which was submitted to be not described as the Branch Office while quoting Section 65(4) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, Order XXIX Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Section 20 of the Companies Act, 2013, hinting that “service of notice is to be made at registered office of the company only.”
Therefore, SCDRC was of the opinion that the submissions made by the complainant for serving notice at the Branch Office could not be considered. SCDRC found the cause of the delay to be sufficient to explain the 5-day delay and condoned the same. SCDRC further noted that “No notice report was filed on record to show that the notice is duly served at the registered Office address.” Thus, SCDRC set aside the impugned order passed by DCDRC and allowed the instant appeal, directing Decathlon to file a written version before DCDRC within 2 weeks from the date of receiving the order copy and DCDRC to allow both the parties to file affidavit of evidence and thereafter, decide the complaint in accordance with the law.
[Decathlon Sports India Pvt. Ltd. v. Hardik D. Shah, Appeal No. A/23/295, Order dated 29-02-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Appellants: Advocate Alok Vajpeyee, Advocate Ishwar Sethi
For Respondents: Advocate Suchitra Ovhal
