HON’BLE MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY, MEMBER

This Revision u/s 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the OP assailing the order No. 9 dated 6.9.2016 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit-I in Complaint Case No. CC/241/2015, fixing a date for final hearing of the Complaint Case concerned skipping the stages for filing evidence, questionnaire and replies thereto by the parties concerned.  Aggrieved by the said order the OP has preferred the instant Revision.

The Ld. Advocate for the Revisionist submits that the order impugned was passed ignoring the settled procedure of trial of Consumer Cases and hence, the order passed is not legally valid.

The Ld. Advocate continues that the order impugned was passed ignoring the requirements of the provisions of the statute as laid down u/s 13(2)(b)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and that without considering that the evidence, questionnaires and replies thereto cannot be filed by the parties concerned at a time.

The Ld. Advocate adds that the Consumer Case, even being a case of summary trial, cannot be adjudicated without any evidence and exchange of interrogatories and replies thereto by the parties involved as per the standard procedure.

The Ld. Advocate finally concludes that in view of the aforesaid submission, the order impugned should be set aside, the same being contrary to the settled principle of law and the case be remanded to the Ld. District Forum with direction to follow the settled trial procedure for disposal of the Complaint Case.

On the other hand, the Respondent/Complainant appearing in person submits that the Ld. District Forum fixed the date of final hearing of the Complaint Case being a case of summary trial allowing opportunity to file evidence, interrogatories and replies ‘in the meantime’ and hence, there is no deviation of trial process of the Complaint Case.

The Respondent/Complainant concludes that in view of the above submission, the instant Revision should be dismissed.

Heard both the sides, considered their respective submission and perused the materials on records.

The order impugned reveals that the Ld. District Forum passed the order impugned fixing the final date of hearing bypassing the well-settled procedural stages of receiving evidence from the OP and/or cross-examination stage through exchange of interrogatories and replies thereto among the parties involved.  Receiving evidence as required u/s 13(2)(b)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and cross examination through exchange of interrogatories and replies thereto among the parties involved, are the fundamental requirements of justice delivery system even in the case of summary trial.  But in the case on hand, the Ld. District Forum did not adopt the said procedure of justice delivery system before fixing the final date of hearing of the Complaint Case.

The aforesaid facts, submission and observation lead to the conclusion that the order impugned was not passed in compliance with the settled procedure of trial of the Complaint Cases under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Consequently, the order impugned deserves to be set aside and the case be remanded to the Ld. District Forum for order afresh in compliance with the settled principle of trial of the Complaint Case allowing the OP to file its evidence and the other side to exchange interrogatories and replies thereto before the stage of final hearing.

Accordingly, the Revision is allowed.  The impugned order is set aside.  The case is remanded to the Ld. District Forum for order afresh.  Both the parties are directed to appear before the Ld. District Forum concerned on 22.5.2017.