ORDER

(Per: D.K. Tyagi, Member):

            This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986  against the order dated 16.01.2015 passed by the District Forum, Nainital in consumer complaint No. 69 of 2013.  By the impugned order, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint ex-pare against the opposite parties and directed the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 2,81,275/- as compensation, jointly or separately, together with simple interest @ 7% per annum on the said amount and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses from the date of filing the consumer complaint till actual payment, within one month from the date of order.  

2.       Briefly stated the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. UA06-C-8911, Engine/Chassis No. 112689 005573 and he took insurance of his vehicle from the opposite parties’ Moradabad office, for which he paid Rs. 24,000/- to the opposite parties and Insurance Policy No. 108046/31/13/00/001981 was issued to him, which was valid from 07.07.2012 to 06.07.2013.  On 11.11.2012 the said vehicle met with an accident within the jurisdiction of Than-Hapur Dehat, U.P.  The complainant has informed the Police Station, Hapur Dehat, U.P. and also informed the representative of the opposite party No. 2 on mobile.  At the time of accident, the vehicle was being driven by the driver having valid driving license and Fitness Certificate and also a valid National Permit. The accident spot was visited by the representative of the opposite parties for the loss incurred.  The complainant suffered a loss of Rs. 4,07,365/-due to accident of the vehicle, for which necessary bill and estimate was submitted to the opposite parties and he has also completed all the formalities, but the opposite parties have not issued accident claim till date to the complainant.  The complainant had purchased the said vehicle on loan for his livelihood.  The complainant sent a legal notice through his counsel to the opposite parties on 11.04.2015, but all went in vain.  Thus, the opposite parties have committed gross deficiency in service and mental injury to the complainant, therefore, the complainant has filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Naintal. 

3.       The District Forum issued notice to the opposite parties, which was served upon the opposite parties and engaged counsel, but later on they did not appear before the District Forum and as such, the District Forum proceeded the consumer complaint ex-parte against the opposite parties and decided the same vide order dated 16.01.2015 in the above terms.  Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant-Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. has filed this appeal. 

4.       We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.  It appears from the impugned judgment and order dated 16.01.2015 that before the District Forum the consumer complaint was proceeded ex-parte against the appellant.  The appellant did not file any written statement before the District Forum against the consumer complaint filed by the complainant.  It is a settled principle of law that all the parties involved in the matter in question should get proper opportunity of being heard.

5.       We have noticed that the opposite party-appellant could not file written statement before the District Forum and the District Forum did not give opportunity to the appellant for adducing the evidence on affidavit and disposed of the consumer complaint merely on the basis of the pleadings of the complainant-respondent only, which is contrary to the principle of natural justice.

6.       The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Topline Shoes Ltd. Vs. Corporation Bank; II (2002) CPJ 7 (SC), has observed that “it is for the Forum or the Commission to consider all facts and circumstances along with the provisions of the Act providing time frame to file reply, as a guideline, and then to exercise its discretion as best it may serve the ends of justice and achieve the object of speedy disposal of such cases keeping in mind the principle of natural justice as well.”

7        In view of the Hon’ble Apex Court’s decision, we are unable to sustain the order passed by the District Forum and set aside the same.

8.       The Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Mathura Mahto Mistry Vs. Bindeshwar Jha (Dr.) and another; I (2008) CPJ 109 (NC), has held that disposing of the complaint simply on pleadings without directing the parties to file evidence by way of affidavits is illegal on the face of it.  The Hon’ble National Commission in the aforesaid judgment has also held that “moreover without adducing evidence, both the parties obviously did not get an opportunity to prove their respective case, in view of which, we are unable to sustain the order passed by the District Forum, which is set aside and the case is remanded back to the Forum below to give an opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence by way of affidavits and also permit cross-examination through questionnaire and reply and only after completion of all the necessary procedure as per law, the District Forum shall hear the case on merit and dispose it of preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.”

9.       Thus, we feel it just and proper to remand the case to the District Forum for decision afresh in accordance with law.  The opposite party-appellant shall file its written statement before the District Forum on or before 30.10.2015 positively and thereafter the District Forum shall afford a reasonable opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence in support of their case.  The District Forum shall take all sort of endeavour to decide the consumer complaint as early as possible and preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing the written statement by the opposite party-appellant.

10.     With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 16.01.2015 passed by the District Forum is set aside and the case is remanded back to the District Forum for decision afresh in accordance with law.  The opposite party-appellant is directed to file its written statement before the District Forum on or before           30.10.2015 positively and thereafter the District Forum shall grant reasonable opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence in support of their case.  The District Forum is further directed to decide the consumer complaint expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing the written statement by the opposite party-appellant.  It is made clear that the District Forum shall not grant any adjournment to the opposite party-appellant seeking time for filing the written statement.  Copy of the order be sent to the District Forum, Nainital immediately.  No order as to costs.