L.I.C. Of India vs GHEESI DEVI

THIS revision petition under Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against, (i) the order dated 24.7.2002 whereby the D.F. proceeded to hear the complaint of the non-petitioner ex parte and (ii) the order dated 15.11.2002, whereby the D.F. rejected petitioner''s application to set aside the ex parte order and to take on record its reply as also the evidence in support of such reply.

HEARD the learned Counsel. We agree with the learned Counsel for the petitioner that looking to the aims and objects of the C.P. Act, 1986 and the procedure to be adopted for redressal of the grievances of the parties concerned, the Forums under the Act are required not to shut the doors of justice upon them during the pendency of the complaint. As technical rules of evidence and the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Code relating to filing of replies and production of documents are not applicable to the proceedings under the C.P. Act, 1986 (the Act) the Redressal Agencies under the Act should not consider themselves helpless in formulating such a procedure in accordance with the provisions contained in the Act as advances and promotes the cause of finally settling the dispute between the parties as early as possible and practicable, after having provided proper opportunity of being heard to them. Procedural sins should not cause death of the legitimate rights of the parties. At the same time attempts of such litigants who deliberately want to prolong the litigation by misusing or abusing the due process of law should be foiled with iron hands. It is true that in the instant case, the D.F. had proceeded ex parte against the petitioner because the petitioner did not put in appearance before it, despite service of notice. Even then the D.F. should have been alive to the fact that no case is decided against a person without giving him opportunity of being heard if such person appears before it during the pendency of the proceedings, and wants to place the version of his case before it. The D.F. may compensate the other party by levy of cost under such circumstances.

The order dated 15.11.2002, whereby the petitioner has been refused participation in the proceedings by filing reply and to produce evidence in support thereof should not come in the way of the D.F. to again rehear the matter and give opportunity to the petitioner to put up its version before it and support its version with evidence. The D.F. may compensate the other party with cost and also may give him an opportunity to rebut the evidence which has been produced by his adversary.

IN view of the above the order dated 24.7.2002 as also the order dated 15.11.2002 are set aside and the present petition is allowed with a direction to the D.F. that it would allow the petitioner an opportunity to file its version of the case along with all the evidence which the petitioner wants to produce in support of such version. While giving such opportunity to the petitioner the D.F. may, in its discretion, direct the petitioner to pay to the complainant such amount by way of cost as it may deem proper and reasonable to award in the facts and circumstances of the case. The petition stands disposed of. Revision Petition allowed.