(Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President):

This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 07.01.2011 passed by the District Forum, Nainital in consumer complaint No. 100 of 2010.  By the order impugned, the District Forum has ex-parte allowed the consumer complaint against the appellant – opposite party and directed the appellant to hand over the amended documents of the vehicle in question (Royal Enfield Motorcycle) to the respondent – complainant after removing the endorsement of hypothecation from the temporary registration certificate and other documents of the vehicle, within a period of one month from the date of the order.  The appellant was also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant towards mental agony and financial loss and Rs. 3,000/- towards litigation expenses.

2.       Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant approached the opposite party – M/s Tamanna Automobiles for purchase of Royal Enfield motorcycle.  The opposite party sent the quotation of the vehicle to the complainant through fax.  On 03.05.2010, the complainant sent a demand draft of Rs. 85,965/- issued by State Bank of India, Nainital to the opposite party towards purchase price of the vehicle.  On 06.05.2010, the complainant received the vehicle from the opposite party, but the opposite party did not provide the temporary registration number of the vehicle and told that the same would be given later on.  On 07.05.2010, the complainant went to the RTO for getting the vehicle registered, but they refused to get the vehicle registered without temporary registration number.  The complainant contacted the opposite party, but the opposite party prolonged the matter.  The complainant had supplied all the required documents to the opposite party.  On 14.06.2010, the complainant was given the temporary registration certificate of the vehicle.  The complainant again visited the RTO for getting the vehicle registered, but they told that since the vehicle has been hypothecated with the bank, therefore, the vehicle can be registered only after submitting Form-34 and other documents.  It was alleged by the complainant that he had not taken any loan from the bank for purchase of the vehicle.  The complainant again contacted the opposite party and also submitted the certificate dated 26.06.2010 issued by State Bank of India, Nainital to the effect that he has not taken any loan from the bank, but still the opposite party did not get the endorsement regarding hypothecation of the vehicle removed from the temporary registration certificate of the vehicle.  However, in the meanwhile, certain defects occurred in the vehicle, complaint whereof was made to the opposite party, but to no avail.  Thereafter, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Nainital. 

3.       The District Forum issued notice to the opposite party – appellant, but the appellant did not appear before the District Forum and, as such, the District Forum vide order dated 16.12.2010 proceeded the consumer complaint ex-parte against the appellant and decided the same vide impugned order dated 07.01.2011 in the above terms.  Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant 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 that before the District Forum, the consumer complaint 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 appellant could not file written statement before the District Forum and the District Forum did not give opportunity to the appellant for adducing evidence on affidavit and disposed of the consumer complaint merely on the basis of the pleadings of the complainant 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 feel it just and proper to remand the case to the District Forum for decision afresh in accordance with law.  The appellant shall file its written statement before the District Forum on or before 12.03.2015 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 two months from the date of filing the written statement by the appellant.

9.       With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is allowed.  Impugned judgment and order dated 07.01.2011 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 appellant is directed to file its written statement before the District Forum on or before 12.03.2015 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 two months from the date of filing the written statement by the appellant.  It is made clear that the District Forum shall not grant any adjournment to the 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.

  (SMT. VEENA SHARMA)                      (D.K. TYAGI)                         (JUSTICE B.C. KANDPAL)

K