Heard the learned counsel for   both the sides.

2.             This appeal is  filed  U/S-15 of erstwhile  Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to  with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

3.                      The factual matrix leading to the  case of the complainant, is that   the complainant is  the wife of Late Jagadish Shraff   who was earning his livelihood  in way of production of chowmin in a small house at Road sahi,Jamapalli,Bhanjanagar,Ganjam.  It is alleged that complainant’s husband  provided with two cylinders  from 11.05.2009 bearing consumer No.R-21494. The complainant’s husband had purchased the refill cylinder on 13.06.2014. It is alleged that  on 18.06.2014 at about  5.00 A.M.   there was smell  of  something burning inside the room and  while opening the  door, the gas refill blasted with high sound thereby the husband of the complainant sustained serious injury  and was shifted to Sub-Division Hospital Bhanjanagar and then to Seven Hills Hospital,Visakhapatnam where the complainant succumbed to injury  on 26.04.2014. Thereafter the claim was filed but it was repudiated. So, the complaint was filed.

 4.                 The OP  was  ex-parte.

 5.        After hearing  both the parties, learned
District Forum  dismissed  the complaint.

6.              Learned counsel  for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum dismissed the complaint due to non-production of the documents by the complainant.  According to  him the complainant could not get sufficient  time to  trace out the documents and as such failed to avail the  opportunity of being heard. At the same time learned counsel for the respondent submitted that he had not received summon  for which he could  not appeared.  

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

 8.           It is clearly revealed  that learned District Forum, in absence of  documents  of the complainant has dismissed  the complaint. On the otherhand  learned counsel for the OP also submits  that the opportunity  was  not given. Be  that as it may, there is clear observation in the impugned order that in absence of  the documentary evidence the complainant did  not prove his case. On the otherhand, the OP  also  has been set-exparte. In such circumstances, we are of the view that  the matter should be remanded to the learned District Commission for denovo hearing after giving opportunity to OP  file written version.

9.         From  the foregoing discussions, we are of the opinion  that the impugned order is liable to be set-aside and it is set-aside  and  matter is  remanded with direction to  the learned District Commission for denovo hearing after giving opportunity to the  OP-respondent to file written version within a period of 30 days  from date of appearance before learned District Commission  and dispose of the case  in accordance with law within 30 days from the date of filing written version. Both the parties are directed to appear before the learned District Commission on 20.02.2023  to take further instruction.  

                  The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No cost.

                   Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet  or webtsite of this  Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.  

                    DFR be sent back forthwith.