ORDER

(Per: D.K. Tyagi, Member):

            This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986  against the order dated 04.07.1995 passed by the District Forum, Tehri Garhwal in consumer complaint No. 171 of 1995.  By the impugned order, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint ex-parte against the opposite party and directed the opposite party to provide telephone connection to the complainant within 15 days and also to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant from concerned official of the Telephone Department. 

2.       Briefly stated the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint are that the complainant resides at House No. 519 Bauradi, New Tehri and his company M/s Sangam Builders is situated at old Tehri for which a telephone connection was allotted by the opposite party-Telephone Department. The complainant had deposited prescribed fees regarding telephone connection.  In the month of April-May, 1994 a telephone apparatus was placed at the house of the complainant by the employees of the opposite party and it was informed to the complainant that the telephone number will be 2261.  The complainant has stated in the consumer complaint that the opposite party–S.D.O., Telephones, New Tehri has not supplied connection of telephone to the complainant. The complainant used other telephones for his business and thereby suffering a loss of Rs. 5,000/- per month.  He had already suffered a loss in the tune of Rs. 60,000/- so far.  The complainant has prayed for connection of telephone line and also demanded a sum of Rs. 60,000/- as compensation and also demanded Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses.  The complainant has also filed an affidavit in support of his consumer complaint.

3.       The District Forum has issued notice to the opposite party-appellant, which was served on 15.06.1995 upon the opposite party, but the opposite party-appellant did not appear before the District Forum and as such, the District Forum proceeded the matter against the opposite party-appellant and decided the same vide impugned order dated 04.07.1995 in the above terms.  Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant-opposite party has filed this appeal. 

4.       We have heard learned counsel for the appellant-opposite party and have also perused the record. 

5.       The respondent did not appear before this Commission despite service through publication in the newspaper ‘Jan Bharat Mail’ dated 07.08.2012. 

6.       Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted before this Commission that the impugned order dated 04.07.1995 has been passed ex-parte without hearing the opposite party-appellant and without waiting for reply of the appellant.  Learned counsel has also submitted that the impugned order has been passed ex-parte without providing adequate opportunity whatsoever and the consumer complaint has been allowed on conjectures and surmises by the District Forum.  There was nothing on the record of District Forum as a matter of material in support of the affidavit of the complainant for determining the loss of             Rs. 2,000/- as determined by the District Forum, Tehri Garhwal.  

7.       It appears from the impugned order that before the District Forum the consumer complaint proceeded ex-parte in absence against the opposite party-appellant.  The appellant did not file any written statement before the District Forum, Tehri Garhwal 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.       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 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, if required, 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 opposite party-appellant shall file its written statement before the District Forum on or before 30.11.2015 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 three months from the date of filing the written statement by the opposite party-appellant.

12.     With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 04.07.1995 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 opposite party-appellant is directed to file its written statement before the District Forum on or before           30.11.2015 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 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 any adjournment to the opposite party-appellant seeking time for filing the written statement.  Copy of the order be sent to the District Forum, Tehri Garhwal immediately.  No order as to costs.