ORDER

Per: Mr. D.K. Tyagi, Member:

            This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 04.08.2014 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 271 of 2014; Himanshu Sain, Advocate vs. Garg Electronics and another.  By the impugned order, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint ex-parte against the appellant-opposite party No. 2 and directed the opposite party No. 2 to pay a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/-  to the complainant within a month from the date of order.

2.       Briefly stated the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint are that the complainant has purchased a Dish T.V. Set Top Box alongwith V.C. Card bearing No. 01517252515 manufactured by opposite party No. 2 on 28.11.2012 via Subscriber Application Form No. 14920741.  That all the services related issues handled by opposite party No. 1, which is the authorized service center of opposite party No. 2. The complainant had paid Rs. 12,990/- to the opposite party No. 2 on 28.11.2012 and got the Set Top Box alongwith V.C. Card and opposite party No. 1 had installed the same at the residence of complainant on the same day. After receiving amount Rs. 12,990/-, the opposite party No. 1 told to complainant that the connection of the above noted set top box alongwith V.C. card is now activated till 26.11.2017 alongwith all the benefits including all the TV channels which are the part of this scheme noted above and there is no need to recharge again or any other kind of charges during this period until 26.11.2017. The opposite party No. 2 had provided all the TV channels to the complainant for almost two years from the date of activation, but in the month of March, 2014, the opposite party No. 2 has stopped providing some channels including “ETV, UPETV, ETV URDU, ETV BIHAR etc.”. The complainant intimated this problem to opposite party No. 2 and told them about the problem regarding not showing of some TV channels. The opposite party No. 2 instead of rectification of the problem, told the complainant that after March, 2014 there will be extra charge for these TV channels, as they have shifted these TV channels to another satellite and the same will be available after changing the presently installed LNB, which is presently installed and provided by opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 respectively to new LNB after depositing the extra amount. The complainant told to opposite party No. 2 that till February, 2014 all the benefits and TV channels were working fine on the currently installed LNB then what is the necessity to change currently installed LNB before the expiration of promised serviced period of 5 years, i.e. before 26.11.2017. The opposite party No. 2 told to complainant that it is must to change currently installed LNB with the new one, if you want to see these TV channels noted above and opposite party No. 2 also told that all the cost for changing the LNB will be beard by the complainant. The opposite party No. 1 had changed the currently installed LNB to new LNB at the residence of complainant on 01.05.2014 and charged Rs. 900/- from the complainant by invoice No. 1909, as compelled by opposite party No. 2 for watching the above noted TV channels.  The complainant has deposited whole amount of Rs. 12,990/- at opposite party No. 2 and is entitled for the service, as described under Super Platinum Scheme for 5 years and stop providing of above noted TV channels before the expiration of duration provided by the opposite party No. 2 and asking for extra payment for changing the LNB between the guaranteed service period of providing the same TV channels, which were the part of the scheme is comes under the purview of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  The complainant is the customer of the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 and the above act of opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 shows deficiency in service and comes under unfair trade practice.  Due to above act of opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 causes mental, social and economic damages of Rs. 4.00 lacs to complainant for which opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 are jointly responsible. The complainant prayed for an amount of Rs. 15,50,000/- as fine for unfair trade practice, Rs. 900/- for price of new LNB alongwith service charges, Rs. 10,000/-for court expenses and Rs. 4.00 lacs for mental, social and economic damages. 

3.       The District Forum issued notice to the opposite parties, but the opposite parties after sufficient service did not appear before the District Forum and as such, the District Forum vide order dated 16.07.2014 proceeded the consumer complaint ex-parte against the opposite parties and decided the same vide impugned judgment and order dated 04.08.2014 in the above terms. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party No. 2-appellant has filed this appeal.

4.       We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No. 1 in person and have also perused the record.  None is present on behalf of the respondent No. 2. It appears from the judgment and order that before the District Forum, the consumer complaint was proceeded ex-parte against the opposite parties. The opposite parties did not file any written statement before the District Forum against the consumer complaint filed by the respondent No. 1-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 parties could not file written statement before the District Forum and the District Forum did not give opportunity to the opposite parties for adducing evidence on affidavit and disposed of the consumer complaint merely on the basis of the pleadings of respondent No. 1 only, which is contrary to the principle of natural justice. 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.”

6        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.

7.       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.”

8.       Thus, we are of the view that the consumer complaint be decided on its own merit.  Therefore, we set aside the ex-parte judgment and order dated 04.08.2014 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar, subject to the costs of Rs. 2,000/-, which shall be paid by the appellant to respondent No. 1-complainant and remanded back the matter to the District Forum to decide the case on its own merit. The opposite parties shall file their written statement before the District Forum on or before 29.04.2016 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 appellant.

9.       With the aforesaid direction, the appeal is allowed.  Copy of the order be sent to the District Forum, Haridwar immediately.  No order as to costs.  The statutory amount deposited by the appellant at the time of filing the appeal be released in appellant’s favour.