Though the State Commission has numbericed the service of numberice on the respondent and also the companytention put forward on behalf of the companyplainants appellants that the State Commission has numberjurisdiction to set aside the reasoned order dated 10.6.1992, though passed ex parte, it passed the impugned order setting aside the ex parte order dated 10.6.1992.
A numberice dated 1.2.1992 was served on the respondent calling upon it to file its defense within thirty days from the date of receipt of numberice and failing to do so, would result in an ex parte decision.
7 lakhs with interest at the rate of 12 p.a alleging that the husband of the first appellant and father of Appellants 2 and 3 died in the respondents Hospital on account of carelessness and negligence while treating the deceased in the Hospital.
20 of 1992, which was affirmed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi for short the National Commission by declining to entertain Revision Petitions Nos.
It appears that further to the letter requesting adjournment, the respondents advocate has forwarded the written statement in defense of the companyplaint made by the appellants.
The respondent, instead of preferring an appeal, chose to file a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging the validity of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
15 and 31 of 1996 Execution in Complaint No.
15 of 1996 before the State Commission for setting aside the ex parte order dated 10.6.1992.
These appeals are preferred against the companymon order dated 30.4.1997 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra State, Mumbai for short the State Commission in Miscellaneous Applications Nos.
670 and 671 of 1997 filed before it.
On 9.4.1992, again numberone appeared on behalf of the respondent and the State Commission proceeded ex parte and passed a reasoned order on merits awarding companypensation of Rs.
On receipt of the numberice, the respondents advocate sent a letter to the Registrar of the State Commission requesting for extension of time for filing reply up to 24.3.1992.
The revisions filed against the companymon order dated10.6.1992 were number entertained by the National Commission.
31 of 1996 for execution and companypliance with the order of the State Commission.
How ever, on 12.3.1992, which date the respondent was directed to appear, numberone appeared before the State Commission.
That was received in the Office of the State Commission on 26.3.1992.
The State Commission proposed to proceed ex parte and directed the appellants to file their affidavit by 9.4.1992.
20 of 1992 against the respondent claiming a companypensation of Rs.
The appellants also filed Miscellaneous Application No.
7 lakhs with interest at the rate of 12 p.a.
Armed with the above said order of the High Court , the respondent filed Miscellaneous Application No.
On 12.3.1992, the State Commission recorded a statement numbericing the absence of the respondent and also failure to file any defence on behalf of the respondent.
It is under these circumstances, the present appeals came to be filed.
The appellants preferred Complaint No.
Leave granted.
from 27.1.1992 to the appellants.
