Aggrieved with the decision of the Ld. District Forum which has dismissed the complaint case being filed by the Appellant, this statutory Appeal is preferred u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The short case of the Appellant is that he intended to take one insurance policy from the Respondent Company and accordingly, issued necessary cheque for this purpose.  However, on receipt of the policy bond after long time, he noticed several anomalies in the same and therefore, he returned it to the Respondents for doing the needful.  After repeated follow ups, though a new policy was issued, the same too was beset with various discrepancies.  Moreover, it was claimed by the Appellant that the signature contained in the proposal form did not belong to him.  As the Respondents did not redress his grievance properly, the complaint case was filed by him. The Respondents, however, denied all the material allegation of the complaint. 

The Respondents initially appeared through their Ld. Advocate.  However, as they did not turn up at the time of hearing, the Appeal was heard ex parte.

The Appellant fervently disowned the signature contained in the proposal form.  Although the Appellant needed to prove such fact by referring the matter to a hand-writing expert, somehow, he did not approach the Ld. District Forum to do the needful in this regard. 

Let us appreciate that justice can only be imparted to an aggrieved party provided the inherent truth comes to fore and for this reason, I am inclined to accord due privilege to the Appellant to prove his case following due process of law.   

In the interest of natural justice, therefore, I remand the case to the Ld. District Forum for fresh adjudication of the dispute on the basis of expert opinion as noted hereinabove. 

The Appeal, accordingly, stands allowed in part.  The impugned order is hereby set aside.  Parties to appear before the Ld. District Forum on 30-08-2019.