ORDER : (Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President): This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 14.02.2013 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 05 of 2012. By the order impugned, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellant – opposite party No. 2 to pay compensation of Rs. 40,000/- to the respondent No. 1 – complainant. The District Forum has also directed the respondent No. 2 – opposite party No. 1 to pay compensation of Rs. 60,000/- to the respondent No. 1 – complainant. This way, the complainant was held entitled to the total compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The amount was directed to be paid within a period of one month from the date of the order. The complainant was directed to hand over the old air conditioner to the respondent No. 2 – opposite party No. 1 within a period of 15 days’ from the date of the order. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that on 05.04.2011, the complainant had purchased a 2.2 ton Hitachi 5 Star Split Air Conditioner from the opposite party No. 1 for sum of Rs. 56,000/-. The said air conditioner carried warranty for a period of five years. It was alleged that due to wrong installation of the air conditioner by the employees of the opposite party No. 1, the air conditioner got damaged and on account of which, the installation report was not signed by the complainant. The complainant agitated the matter with the opposite party No. 1, who assured for replacement of the air conditioner. When the air conditioner was not set right / replaced by the opposite party No. 1, the complainant lodged a complaint with the opposite party No. 2 on 25.05.2011, but no action was taken. The complainant again lodged the complaint with the opposite party No. 2 on 17.06.2011, on which the representative of the company came for inspection of the air conditioner and told that the damaged part would be replaced on its availability, but the needful was not done. The complainant again lodged the complaint on 26.09.2011, but to no avail. Thereafter, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar. 3. The complainant again lodged the complaint on 26.09.2011, but to no avail. Thereafter, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, 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 24.02.2012 proceeded the consumer complaint ex-parte against the appellant and decided the same vide impugned order dated 14.02.2013 in the above terms. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed this appeal. 4. None appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2 inspite of the acknowledgement due pertaining to respondent No. 2 having been received and available on record. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No. 1 – complainant 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. 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. 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 11.05.2015 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. In case, the respondent No. 2 (opposite party No. 1 before the District Forum) also wants to file some other evidence in support of its defence, it may also file the same on the date so fixed by the District Forum for the evidence of the parties. 9. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 14.02.2013 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. 9. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 14.02.2013 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 11.05.2015 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. It is made clear that the District Forum shall not grant any adjournment to the appellant seeking time for filing the written statement. In case, the respondent No. 2 (opposite party No. 1 before the District Forum) also wants to file some other evidence in support of its defence, it may also file the same on the date so fixed by the District Forum for the evidence of the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the District Forum, Haridwar immediately. No order as to costs.