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

This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 11.07.2014 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 148 of 2014.  By the order impugned, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and quashed the recovery certificate in question.  The electricity department was further directed to pay compensation of  Rs. 5,00,000/- to the respondent – complainant.  It was also directed that in case the electricity department is unable to pay the whole of the above amount, then in that eventuality, the remaining amount after adjusting the amount of the recovery certificate, may be paid to the respondent – complainant.  The District Forum has also directed the electricity department to immediately restore the electricity connection of the respondent – complainant.

2.       Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant had taken an electricity connection from the electricity department on 12.11.2001, but the service line was not installed.  The complainant was issued the electricity bill of excessive amount.  The complainant met the officials of the electricity department, but the bill was not corrected.  The inspection was made, but the bill was not rectified as per the inspection report.  The electricity connection of the complainant was disconnected on 05.03.2010.  The complainant was issued an electricity bill of about Rs. 75,000/-.  When the complainant was not heard, he filed a consumer complaint against the opposite parties before the District Forum, Haridwar, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

3.       The appellants filed reply to the consumer complaint, stating therein that the consumer complaint needs a thorough investigation before giving meaningful reply to the consumer complaint; that the matter is under active investigation and that the detailed reply to the consumer complaint will be submitted at the evidence stage.

4.       The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 11.07.2014 in the above manner.  Aggrieved by the said order, the electricity department has filed the present appeal.      

5.       We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and respondent – complainant in person and have also perused the record.  As is stated above, the appellants – opposite parties did not file the detailed reply to the consumer complaint filed by the respondent – complainant and stated before the District Forum that the matter is under investigation and they will file the detailed reply at the evidence stage. 

6.       The order-sheet of the consumer complaint on record shows that the matter was put up before the District Forum on 10.07.2014 and on the said date, the District Forum had summoned the Executive Engineer (Rural) and the matter was fixed for 11.07.2014 for filing the evidence by the parties.  On 11.07.2014, the Executive Engineer did not appear and the District Forum closed the evidence of the appellants and heard arguments and pronounced the impugned judgment and order on the same date, i.e., 11.07.2014.  The fact that the appellants did not file any evidence, is also evident from the impugned judgment and order of the District Forum.

7.       When the appellants had not filed the detailed written statement and stated that the matter is under investigation and they will file the detailed reply to the consumer complaint at the evidence stage, the District Forum was not at all justified to treat the above reply submitted by the appellants as their written statement.  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.       We have noticed that the appellants could not file the detailed written statement before the District Forum and the District Forum did not give proper opportunity to the appellants 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.”

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 feel it just and proper to remand the case to the District Forum for decision afresh in accordance with law.  The appellants shall file their detailed written statement before the District Forum on or before 30.04.2015 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 detailed written statement by the appellants.

12.     With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is allowed.  Impugned judgment and order dated 11.07.2014 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 appellants are directed to file their detailed written statement before the District Forum on or before 30.04.2015 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 appellants.  It is made clear that the District Forum shall not grant any adjournment to the appellants seeking time for filing the written statement.  Copy of the order be sent to the District Forum, Haridwar immediately.  No order as to costs.         

            (D.K. TYAGI)                                            (JUSTICE B.C. KANDPAL)

K