The instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is at the instance of the Complainants to impeach the Judgement/Final Order dated 06.09.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Paschim Medinipur (in short, Ld. District Forum) in Consumer Complaint No.34/2016 whereby the complaint lodged by the Appellants under Section 12 of the Act was dismissed on contest without any order as to costs.

        The Appellants herein being Complainants lodged the complaint against the Postal Authorities and their employees on the allegation of deficiency in services on the part of them for not providing the maturity value of Monthly Interest Scheme (MIS) with interest thereon.

        After entered appearance, the Respondents being Opposite Parties by filing written version disputed the claim.

       After assessing the materials on record, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned Judgement/Final Order dismissed the complaint, which prompted the complainants to come up in this Commission with the present appeal.

       Mr. Prabir Basu, Ld. Advocate for the Appellants has submitted that in disposing of the complaint, the Ld. District Forum did not receive any evidence of the parties, which is contrary to the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act.  Placing reliance to a decision of Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2008 (1) CPR 1 [Mathura Mahto Mistry – Vs. – Dr. Bindeshwar Jha & Anr.] he has submitted 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.

        Per contra, Mr. Abhijit Bhadra, Ld. Advocate for the Respondents has submitted that when the parties did not file any affidavit or any documents and have participated in the final hearing relying upon some documents and the Ld. District Forum basing upon those documents has disposed of the complainant has passed by a speaking order, it should not be interfered with.

      I have given due consideration to the submission advanced by the Ld. Advocates appearing for the parties and scrutinised the materials on record including the impugned order.

       Having heard the Ld. Advocates for the parties and on going through the impugned Final Order/Judgement, it would reveal that the Ld. District Forum proceeded to dispose of the complaint without appreciation of any evidence.  In other words, the impugned order does not reflect whether the Ld. District Forum asked the complainants to tender evidence through affidavit in support of their case.  In the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum has observed –

          “At the very outset, it is to be stated here that in this case neither the complainants nor the opposite parties have adduced any sort of evidence, either oral or documentary but they have relied upon some documents, so filed by them in this case”. 

       For appreciation of the matter, it would be worthwhile to reproduce the provisions of Section 13(2)(b)(i) of the Act which provides –

          “(2)  The District Forum shall, if the complaint admitted by it under Section 12 relates to goods in respect of which the procedure specified in sub-Section (1) cannot be followed, or if the complaint relates to any services, -

1.  Refer a copy of such complaint to the opposite party directing him to give his version of the case within a period of thirty days or such extended period not exceeding fifteen days as may be granted by the District Forum;
2.  where the opposite party, on receipt of a copy of the complaint, referred to him under clause (a) denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint, or omits or fails to take any action to represent his case within the time given by the District Forum, the District Forum shall proceed to settle the consumer dispute, -

1. on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant and the opposite party, where the opposite party denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint, or
2. ex-parte on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant where the opposite party omits or fails to take any action to represent his case within the time given by the Forum”.

          It is not in dispute that the Ld. District Forum before disposing of the complaint did not ask or direct the parties to file evidence on affidavit in support of their case.  Therefore, in view of the decision in the case of (Mathura Mohan Mahato Mistry (supra) and the provisions of Section 13(2)(a) and (b) of the Act, the Ld. District Forum has proceeded with the complaint wrongly without appreciating evidence of the parties and as such the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law.  Be it mentioned here that in another decision reported in 2016 (4) CPR 644 [Jagrut Nagrik & Anr. – Vs. – New Indian Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.] the Hon’ble National Commission has made it quite clear that complaint cannot be decided without affording opportunity to the parties to lead evidence.

        Therefore, the impugned Order being not sustainable in the eye of law, is liable to be set aside.

          In view of the above, the appeal is allowed on contest.   There will be no order as to costs.

          The impugned Judgement/Final Order is hereby set aside.

        The case is remitted on remand with the direction upon the parties to appear before the Ld. District Forum on 26.07.2018 to receive further order from the said authority.  The Ld. District Forum is requested to proceed with the case and to dispose of the same in accordance with law.

     The Registrar of the Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Paschim Medinipur for information.