ORDER

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

            This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986  against the order dated 06.05.2009 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 23 of 2008.  By the impugned order, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint ex-parte against the opposite parties and directed them to pay a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- to the complainant together with interest @ 7% per annum from 05.02.2006 till the date of payment.

2.       Briefly stated the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint are that the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 came to complainant’s residence and assured her that their finance company named Sri Gurudev Saving & Financer India (Regd.) Office 6/1 Govind Nagar, Bangali Mandir Road, Rishikesh, District Dehradun, is well known finance company, where crores of rupees deposited by public and we accordingly return back the amount after maturity to the depositors.  After trusting on the opposite parties, the complainant deposited Rs. 75,000/- with the opposite parties vide receipt A/c No. CD 110 and receipt No. 112 dated 05.02.2002 for 48 months on the basis of 18% per annum interest and the maturity amount was Rs. 1,50,000/- on 05.02.2006, which was to be returned by the opposite parties.  The complainant has pleaded that the opposite parties had written Km. Bhawna Rawat D/o Sh. B.S. Rawat in place of Smt. Bhawani Rawat W/o Sh. B.S. Rawat and also written Rs. 70,000/- in words in place of                Rs. 75,000/- and maturity amount of Rs. 1,40,000/- in place of Rs. 1,50,000/-.  The complainant could not know these facts at the time of deposition of money, but later on when these facts came to the knowledge of the complainant, she complained to the opposite parties and they assured that money will be returned to the complainant, therefore, there is no need to worry.  The complainant demanded maturity amount from the opposite parties on 05.02.2006, but the opposite parties assured the complainant that wait for two more years and the amount will be double.  The complainant agreed and again on 05.02.2008 she demanded Rs. 2,25,000/- from the opposite parties and they assured to return the amount after sometime.  Due to suspicion, the complainant sent a registered A.D. notice to the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 on 19.03.2008, but the opposite parties refused to receive the notice. The complainant again contacted the opposite parties, but they refused to pay the aforesaid amount on 02.04.2008. On 03.04.2008 Sh. Virendra Singh Rawat, husband of the complainant, had written a letter to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Dehradun against the act of the opposite parties.  The opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 intentionally usurp the amount of the complainant. The opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 are responsible to return the amount of the complainant.  Receipts were issued by the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2, which are in the name of the company having signatures of opposite party Nos. 1 & 2. The cause of action arose for the first time on 02.04.2008, when the opposite parties refused to return the amount to the complainant. Later on, on 03.04.2008 when a registry was sent to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Dehradun, but no action was taken by the police.

3.       The District Forum directed the complainant to take steps for publication for service on opposite parties.  Notice for service was published in a local newspaper and the District Forum directed that the service on the opposite parties is deemed sufficient through publication.  Despite publication in the newspaper, the opposite parties did not file any written statement before the District Forum, therefore, the consumer complaint was proceeded ex-parte against the opposite parties. The District Forum decided the consumer complaint ex-parte vide impugned judgment and order dated 06.05.2009 in the above terms. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant-opposite party No. 1 has filed this appeal.

4.       We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.   It appears from the judgment and order that before the District Forum, the consumer complaint 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 respondent. It is submitted by the appellant-opposite party No. 1 that he has no knowledge about the service of notice through publication.  The publication was made in a local newspaper having no circulation.  Later on, after passing a judgment and order, the appellant-opposite party No. 1 came to know about the judgment by a news published in newspaper “Hindustan” dated 07.05.2009. It is a settled principle of law that all the parties involved in the matter in question should get proper opportunity of being heard.

5.       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 the consumer complaint merely on the basis of the pleadings of the respondent 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.”

6        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.

7.       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.”

8.       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 06.05.2009 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun, subject to the costs of        Rs. 5,000/-, which shall be paid by the appellant to the respondent and remand back the matter to the District Forum for decision afresh in accordance with law.  The appellant shall file his written statement before the District Forum on or before 08.03.2016 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 appellant.

9.       With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 06.05.2009 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun is set aside and the case is remanded back to the District Forum for decision afresh in accordance with law.  The appellant is directed to file his written statement before the District Forum on or before 08.03.2016 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 appellant. It is made clear that the District Forum shall not grant any adjournment to the appellant seeking time for filing the written statement. Copy of the order be sent to the District Forum, Dehradun immediately. Costs of Rs. 5,000/- shall be paid by the appellant to the respondent within one month.  The amount deposited by the appellant as statutory amount at the time of filing the appeal be released in favour of the appellant.