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 04.03.2013 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 306 of 2011. By the order impugned, the District Forum has ex-parte allowed the consumer complaint against the appellants – opposite party and quashed the electricity bill in question and also directed the appellants to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- 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 18 years ago, the complainant had applied with the electricity department for a domestic electricity connection and also deposited sum of Rs. 600/- with the electricity department, but the complainant was not provided any electricity connection and no electricity line was installed upto the house of the complainant. It was alleged that the complainant has not consumed any electricity, but the electricity department has wrongly issued electricity bills to the complainant showing electricity connection No. 072091. On receipt of the first electricity bill of Rs. 3,159/- in the year 2003, the complainant wrote a letter dated 22.09.2003 to the electricity department, stating therein that inspite of depositing the required amount, he has not been provided any electricity connection and he has wrongly been issued electricity bills. On the letter of the complainant, an inquiry was made and in the inquiry report dated 13.01.2004, it was mentioned that there is no electricity line at the spot and the complainant is not consuming any electricity. The complainant was assured that no electricity bill would be issued to him in future. But on 27.10.2010, the complainant received an electricity bill to the tune of Rs. 34,009/-. Thereafter, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the electricity department, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar. 3. The District Forum issued notice to the appellants, but the appellants did not appear before the District Forum and, as such, the District Forum vide order dated 13.12.2011 proceeded the consumer complaint ex-parte against the appellants and decided the same vide impugned order dated 04.03.2013 in the above terms. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have filed this appeal. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have 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 appellants. The appellants 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 appellants could not file written statement before the District Forum and the District Forum did not give opportunity to the appellants 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 appellants shall file their written statement before the District Forum on or before 20.02.2015 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 appellants. 9. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 04.03.2013 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 appellants are directed to file their written statement before the District Forum on or before 20.02.2015 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 appellants. 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 appellants. It is made clear that the District Forum shall not grant any adjournment to the appellants seeking time for filing the written statement. Copy of the order be sent to the District Forum, Haridwar immediately. No order as to costs.