ORDER P.S. Rana (R) President. —Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 10.06.2016 passed by Learned District Forum Shimla in consumer complaint No.04/2014 title Dharmender Singh v. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Corporation Ltd. and Anr. Brief facts of Case: 2. Shri Dharminder Singh complainant filed complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that opposite parties i.e. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Corporation Ltd. issued five life insurance policies in consideration amount of Rs.76000/- (Seventy six thousand). It is pleaded that representatives of opposite parties No.1 and 2 approached complainant at Shimla and offer to provide life insurance policy with easy instalments and handsome return. It is further pleaded that after payment of Rs.76000/- (Seventy six thousand) complainant was to receive detailed policy bond from opposite parties. It is pleaded that complainant did not receive policy bonds for considerable period of more than six months. It is pleaded that opposite parties have committed deficiency in service. Complainant sought relief as mentioned in relief cause of complaint. 3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite parties pleaded therein that complaint of the complainant is barred by limitation. It is pleaded that complaint of complainant is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is further pleaded that complainant has concealed true and material facts from the learned District Forum. It is pleaded that proposal of complainant was accepted by opposite parties and policies were issued strictly in accordance with proposal. It is further pleaded that complainant was given fifteen days time to review the terms and conditions of the contract as per Policy Holders'' Protections Regulation 2002. It is further pleaded that complainant did not give any notice to opposite parties for cancellation of policies within period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of policy bond. It is further pleaded that complainant did not approach opposite parties to cancel the policy within fifteen days. It is pleaded that policy in question lapsed and it is pleaded that contract of policy was terminated strictly in accordance with terms and condition of policy. Prayer for dismissal of complaint sought. 4. Learned District Forum dismissed the complaint. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by learned District Forum present appeal is filed by the complainant before State Commission. None appeared on behalf of appellant at the time of final hearing. Prayer for dismissal of complaint sought. 4. Learned District Forum dismissed the complaint. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by learned District Forum present appeal is filed by the complainant before State Commission. None appeared on behalf of appellant at the time of final hearing. State Commission decided to dispose of appeal. 5. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of respondents and we have also perused entire record carefully. 6. Following points arises for determination in present appeal. 1. Whether appeal filed by appellant is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal. 2. Final order. Findings upon point No.1 with reasons: 7. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant Miss Prinyanka Advocate has given statement before learned District Forum that complaint along with documents already filed be read in evidence and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant on dated 05.10.2015. Similarly learned Advocate Ms. Sneh Lata appearing on behalf of opposite parties has given statement before learned District Forum on dated 30.03.2016 that version filed by opposite parties and documents annexures OP-I to Annexures OP-4 be read in evidence and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite parties. Learned District Forum decided complaint upon merits. 8. After perusal of contents of complaint and after perusal of contents of version filed by opposite parties carefully it is observed by State Commission that there is material dispute inter se parties qua facts. Learned District Forum directs both parties to adduce evidence in support of their case. It is held that complaint cannot be treated as evidence under Consumer Protection Act 1986 because complaint falls within definition of pleading as per law. It is also held that version cannot be treated as evidence under Consumer Protection Act 1986 because version falls within definition of pleadings. As per Section 13 (4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 the evidence can be taken by the learned District Forum by way of examining the parties or witness on oath or by way of receiving evidence on affidavits. In the present case learned District Forum did not receive evidence of parties by way of examining on oath or by way of affidavit as required under section 13 (4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. 9. As per section 13 (4) (ii) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 documentary evidence can be taken which is producible as evidence. In the present case learned District Forum did not receive evidence of parties by way of examining on oath or by way of affidavit as required under section 13 (4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. 9. As per section 13 (4) (ii) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 documentary evidence can be taken which is producible as evidence. The word producible in evidence means able to be produced in evidence. It is held that documentary evidence can be tendered into evidence before learned District Forum only by way of affidavit as mentioned under section 13 (4) (iii) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. It is held that there is no provision under Consumer Protection Act 1986 wherein complaint or version filed under Consumer Protection Act 1986 should be treated as evidence of the parties wherein opposite party denies or dispute the allegation contained in complaint. It is held that it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to treat affidavit filed in support of complaint or version as evidence filed in support of disputed facts for final adjudication inter se the parties under section 14 of Consumer Protection Act 1986. It is held that proceedings under Consumer Protection Act 1986 are quasi judicial proceedings. 10. We are of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice to dispose of present appeal upon merits unless material procedural irregularity committed by learned District Forum is not rectified. See 2005 (1) CPC 172 NC title Balasaheb Ganga Ram Gowade v. Ravindra Kulkarni. See 2000(2) CPC 1 SC title Nath Bros. Exim International Ltd. v. Best Roadways Ltd. , See 2000 (1) CPC 605 NC title M/s. Eicher Motors Ltd. v. Mahendra Nirmal Kumar Nirmal and Ors. We are of the opinion that it is expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to remand the complaint back to learned District Forum for adjudication afresh. Point No.1 is answered accordingly. Point No. 2: Final Order 11. We are of the opinion that it is expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to remand the complaint back to learned District Forum for adjudication afresh. Point No.1 is answered accordingly. Point No. 2: Final Order 11. In view of findings upon point No.1 above order of learned District Forum dated 10.06.2016 announced in consumer complaint No. 04/2014 title as Dharmender Singh v. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Corporation Limited and Another is set aside and complaint is remanded back to the learned District Forum for adjudication afresh in accordance with law after obtaining evidence of the parties strictly as per modes mentioned under section 13 (4) (i) to (iii) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. Observation will not effect the merits of complaint in any manner. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. Be listed before learned District Forum Shimla on 19-04-2017. Learned District Forum will dispose of complaint within three months. File of learned District Forum along with certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.