ORDER

Per: Justice B.S. Verma, President (Oral):

            This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been preferred by the appellant-opposite party against the order dated 03.06.2015 passed by the District Forum, Bageshwar in consumer complaint No. 14 of 2014; Sh. Narayan Dutt Joshi vs. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.

2.       Briefly stated the facts of the case, giving rise to the appeal, are that the consumer complaint was filed by Sh. Narayan Dutt Joshi- complainant alleging therein that he has taken a Fire Insurance Policy for Rs. 20.00 lacs from the opposite party-IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.  That on 04.03.2014 at about 8-9 p.m. due to short circuit, the fire broke out in the shop of the complainant, for which an intimation was given to the opposite party-insurance company, who has appointed the surveyor to visit the spot and the surveyor after inspected the spot, submitted his report on 16.03.2014, in which he assessed the loss approximately Rs. 2,29,106/-.  Insurance company-opposite party sent the said amount to the complainant, which was not accepted by the complainant. Thereafter the complainant has filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Bageshwar.

3.       The consumer complaint was not contested by the opposite party before the District Forum, Bageshwar, as the summons were not received by the opposite party.

4.       The District Forum has proceeded the consumer complaint ex-parte against the opposite party on 13.11.2014 and the same was decided ex-parte against the opposite party on 03.06.2015.  The District Forum has directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 19,85,000/- to the complainant.

5.       In the appeal it was alleged that the summon was not received by the appellant-opposite party and the case was proceeded ex-parte against the appellant on 13.11.2014 and thereafter the same was decided on 03.06.2015 by the District Forum.

6.       Learned counsel for respondent submitted that the appellant was served through e-mail.

7.       We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.  It appears from the impugned judgment and order dated 03.06.2015 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. 

8.       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.”

9.       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.

10.     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.”

11.     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 03.06.2015 passed by the District Forum, Bageshwar, subject to the costs of Rs. 2,500/-, which shall be paid by the appellant to the respondent and remanded back the matter to the District Forum to decide the case on its own merit.

12.     With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is allowed.  Impugned judgment and order dated 03.06.2015 passed by the District Forum, Bageshwar is set aside and the case is remanded back to the District Forum, Bageshwar 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 29.02.2016 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 unnecessary adjournment to the parties.  Copy of the order be sent to the District Forum, Bageshwar immediately.  No order as to costs. The amount deposited by the appellant as statutory amount at the time of filing the appeal be released in appellant’s favour.