( 1 ) "mr. Chatterjee's client, the appellant before us, has agreed to settle the claim arising out of the two orders passed by the District Consumer Redressal forum and the State Consumer Redressal forum. However, this settlement is sought to be arrived at by way of good gesture and not basing on the findings arrived at by the learned Forums. Since no evidence has been led so far as the question of damage is concerned, it was incumbent for the writ Court to examine the judgment and order and findings of both the learned two forums. ( 2 ) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the complaint petition, on the basis of which both the impugned orders have been passed by the District Consumer Redressal Forum as well as the State Consumer Redressal Forum, appointed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, we find that prima facie case of negligence has, no doubt, been made out but from the pleadings we do not find any particulars, having been mentioned with regard to the damage, from where the quantum of damage suffered by the complaint/respondent could be ascertained. ( 3 ) WE have gone through the records and the Judgments as well. It appears and it has also been admitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that no evidence was led to prove the damage. ( 4 ) IT is a case of res ipsa loquitur because the case was not conducted as diligently as required by the appellant qua lawyer who had entrusted the learned lawyers to conduct the complaint proceedings before the Consumer Redressal Forum against some other third party. It appears from the order dated 21st April 2003, passed in h. D. R Case No. 150 of 2002 (Sri Tapan kumar Ganguli v. Employees' Provident fund Organization) filed before the District consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, howrah, that the matter was dismissed for default on the ground of non appearance of the complainant. Non appearance of the learned lawyers is, no doubt, a prima facie case of negligence. However, such non-appearance could have been explained later on by way of filing appropriate proceedings but no step whatsoever, for restoring the matter, was taken. Non appearance of the learned lawyers is, no doubt, a prima facie case of negligence. However, such non-appearance could have been explained later on by way of filing appropriate proceedings but no step whatsoever, for restoring the matter, was taken. ( 5 ) BE that as it may, according to us, since this fact of damage was not proved by evidence showing the basis by which such an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was quantified, mere establishing a case of negligence does not automatically entitle the Forum to quantify an amount of Rs. 50,000/- in a case of this nature. Learned State Consumer redressal Forum also overlooked this serious lapse on the part of the learned District consumer Redressal Forum, Learned State consumer Redressal Forum should have taken note of the fact that the judgment was passed by learned District Consumer redressal Forum quantifying a sum of Rs. 50,000/- basing on no evidence and, therefore, should not have accepted the same by partially reducing the compensation amount. from Rs. 50,000/- to basing on no evidence and, therefore, should not have accepted the same by partially reducing the compensation amount from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 30,000/ -. ( 6 ) WE would have remanded the matter for hearing afresh on evidence but since the appellant has come forward to adjust and settle the claim in this matter and such adjustment having been accepted by the respondent/complainant, who is personally present in Court, we refrain from remanding the same, ( 7 ) ACCORDING to us the judgments of both the Forums are totally perverse so far as quantification of damage is concerned as no evidence was led. The damage could have been quantified either at Rs. 1 or Rs. 10 lakh or any other amount on evidence. In our view, appropriate quantification of damage cannot be ascertained without proper evidence being adduced on the question of damage suffered. This fact is so glaring on the face of the record for which we think no further argument is required. Accordingly, both the judgments and orders of the learned Forums are set aside. ( 8 ) IT is an admitted position that a sum of Rs. 25. 000/- has been deposited with the learned State Consumer Redressal Forum as a pre-condition for preferring and admitting the appeal. "the said amount is lying with the State Consumer Redressal Forum. Accordingly, both the judgments and orders of the learned Forums are set aside. ( 8 ) IT is an admitted position that a sum of Rs. 25. 000/- has been deposited with the learned State Consumer Redressal Forum as a pre-condition for preferring and admitting the appeal. "the said amount is lying with the State Consumer Redressal Forum. We, therefore, allow the respondent either by himself or through his learned lawyers, to withdraw the amount lying deposited with the State Consumer Redressal Forum. The state Consumer Redressal Forum is hereby requested to allow such withdrawal of the amount, so deposited, together with interest accrued thereon, if any, after deduction of legitimate cost and charges leviable by the forurn. if any, upon propex identification. ( 9 ) THE dispute between the parties, thus, stands settled so far as this matter is concerned once for all. ( 10 ) IN view of the order passed herein, the judgment and order passed in the Ex- ecution Case, being 22 of 2004, stands set aside and quashed, in view of consent and concensus by the parties, the writ petition also stands disposed of treating the same being withdrawn from the Court of the learned trial Judge. ( 11 ) THE application, being CAN 3574 of 2007, and the appeal, thus, stand disposed of. ( 12 ) THESE will be no order as to costs. .