Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent.

2.      Here is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.

3.   The case of the complainant in short is that the complainant has purchased six Endowment Plus Unit Linked Plan policies bearing No. 594391738, 594390110, 594395120, 594395121, 594395122 and 594395125 on 15.2.2011 from the OP  having single premium payable  for Rs.50,000/- against each policies with the date of maturity  on 15.2.2021. On 29.8.2016, complainant being need of money prematurely surrendered the policies for realization of the money thereof. OP also accepted the request of the complainant and paid Rs.4,70,882/- on 29.8.2016 but deducted Rs. 9,419/- towards TDS. Complainant approached for the certificate for the purpose of filing the same before the Income Tax Department. Although the tax return for the last date was 31.3.2018 for the financial year 2016-2017, but the OP despatched the certificate on 25.7.2018 which was received by the complainant on 26.7.2018. Complainant alleged inter alia that the delay in submission of certificate has caused financial loss and mental pain to complainant. Thus, alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, complaint was filed.

4.      OP has been set ex parte.

 5.     Learned District Forum after hearing complainant passed the following impugned order:-

                             “xxx   xxx   xxx

The complaint petition is allowed. The OP is directed make arrangement for refund of the TDS of Rs.9,419/- (Rupees Nine thousand Four hundred nineteen) only with 9% interest to the complainant within 30(thirty days) of receiving this order. The OP is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) as compensation towards mental agony and pain and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) towards the cost of litigation within 30 (Thirty) days of receiving of this order, failing which, the complainant is at liberty to proceed in due process of law.”

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned District Forum has committed error in law while setting the OP ex parte when no notice has been served on the OP. He submitted that they have not received the summon from the learned District Forum and the learned District Forum has made them ex parte for no reason. According to him after receiving the letter from the complainant they immediately took step to issue the certificate. So there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP. Had he been given opportunity to place the matter on merit, they would have placed the same for discussion of the same on merit. Therefore, he submitted to set aside the impugned order by remanding the matter for fresh disposal and denovo hearing.

7.      Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the DFR including the impugned order.

8.      It appears from the DFR that on 26.2.2019, the learned District Forum have passed the order stating that notice was issued on 8.2.2018 by regd. post with AD and as 30 days have already passed and no AD has been received back, OP has been set ex parte. The record does not show when the notice was issued. Therefore, there is force with the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that he has not received the notice.

9.      In view of aforesaid discussion, impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed by remanding same to the learned District Forum for denovo hearing after giving opportunity to the OP to file written version and allow both parties to adduce evidence and then dispose of the case within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.

Copy of this order be downloaded from the Confonet or Website of this Commission and same be treated as free copy duly self attested by the learned counsel for the appellant who would produce the same before the learned District Forum on 26.7.2021 to receive further instruction from it.

       DFR be sent back forthwith.

       Statutory amount deposited be refunded to the appellant with interest accrued thereon if any on proper identification.