ORDER : Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President (Oral): This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 27.01.2014 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 82 of 2013. By the order impugned, the District Forum has ex-parte allowed the consumer complaint against the appellant – opposite party and directed the appellant to pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the respondent – complainant within a period of one month from the date of the order. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant was the registered owner of vehicle No. UP11-T-2271 (Tata Indica). The said vehicle was being used by the complainant for commercial purpose as a taxi. The said vehicle was insured with the opposite party – United India Insurance Company Limited for the period from 14.03.2011 to 13.03.2012 at an IDV of Rs. 1,50,000/-. It was alleged that during the currency of the insurance policy, in the morning of 22.11.2011 at 4:00 a.m., the driver of the complainant Sh. Anees alias Kalu S/o Sh. Waheed, R/o Mohalla Sati, Emli Road, Roorkee took the insured vehicle to Muzaffarnagar for dropping four passengers, who boarded the insured vehicle at Bus Station, Roorkee. It was also alleged that during the way, the said passengers looted the insured vehicle from the driver on gun point and took the insured vehicle towards Deoband side. An FIR was lodged with the P.S. Kotwali, Deoband against unknown persons and a case was registered bearing Case Crime No. 128 of 2012. It was further alleged that inspite of efforts by the police, neither the accused could be arrested, nor the insured vehicle could be recovered. The complainant lodged the claim with the insurance company for indemnification of the loss, which was repudiated by the insurance company vide letter dated 21.01.2013. Thereafter, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar. 3. The District Forum issued notice to the appellant, but the appellant did not appear before the District Forum and, as such, the District Forum vide order dated 09.09.2013 proceeded the consumer complaint ex-parte against the appellant and decided the same vide impugned order dated 27.01.2014 in the above terms. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed this appeal. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed this appeal. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. It appears from the impugned judgment and order that before the District Forum, the consumer complaint proceeded ex-parte against the appellant. The appellant did not file any written statement before the District Forum against the consumer complaint filed by the complainant. It is a settled principle of law that all the parties involved in the matter in question should get proper opportunity of being heard. 5. We have noticed that the appellant could not file written statement before the District Forum and the District Forum did not give opportunity to the appellant for adducing evidence on affidavit and disposed of the consumer complaint merely on the basis of the pleadings of the complainant only, which is contrary to the principle of natural justice. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Topline Shoes Ltd. Vs. Corporation Bank; II (2002) CPJ 7 (SC), has observed that “it is for the Forum or the Commission to consider all facts and circumstances along with the provisions of the Act providing time frame to file reply, as a guideline, and then to exercise its discretion as best it may serve the ends of justice and achieve the object of speedy disposal of such cases keeping in mind the principle of natural justice as well.” 6. In view of the Hon’ble Apex Court’s decision, we are unable to sustain the order passed by the District Forum and set aside the same. 7. The Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Mathura Mahto Mistry Vs. Bindeshwar Jha (Dr.) and another; I (2008) CPJ 109 (NC), has held 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. 7. The Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Mathura Mahto Mistry Vs. Bindeshwar Jha (Dr.) and another; I (2008) CPJ 109 (NC), has held 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. The Hon’ble National Commission in the aforesaid judgment has also held that “moreover without adducing evidence, both the parties obviously did not get an opportunity to prove their respective case, in view of which, we are unable to sustain the order passed by the District Forum, which is set aside and the case is remanded back to the Forum below to give an opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence by way of affidavits and also permit cross-examination through questionnaire and reply and only after completion of all the necessary procedure as per law, the District Forum shall hear the case on merit and dispose it of preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.” 8. Thus, we feel it just and proper to remand the case to the District Forum for decision afresh in accordance with law. The appellant shall file its written statement before the District Forum on or before 19.05.2015 positively and thereafter the District Forum shall afford a reasonable opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence in support of their case. The District Forum shall take all sort of endeavour to decide the consumer complaint as early as possible and preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing the written statement by the appellant. 9. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 27.01.2014 passed by the District Forum is set aside and the case is remanded back to the District Forum for decision afresh in accordance with law. The appellant is directed to file its written statement before the District Forum on or before 19.05.2015 positively and thereafter the District Forum shall grant reasonable opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence in support of their case. The District Forum is further directed to decide the consumer complaint expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing the written statement by the appellant. The District Forum is further directed to decide the consumer complaint expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing the written statement by the appellant. It is made clear that the District Forum shall not grant any adjournment to the appellant seeking time for filing the written statement. Copy of the order be sent to the District Forum, Haridwar immediately. No order as to costs.