ORDER P.S. Rana (R) President —Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 15.03.2016 passed by Learned District Forum Shimla in consumer complaint No.61/2013 title Diwan Singh v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Brief facts of Case: 2. Complainant Diwan Singh filed a complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that complainant is owner in possession of vehicle No.HP-064-1092. It is pleaded that vehicle was insured with opposite party w.e.f. 29.07.2010 to 28.07.2011. It is pleaded that when vehicle was on its way to Rampur the same met with an accident near Wazir Bauri Tehsil Rampur District Shimla H.P on dated 19.07.2011. It is pleaded that thereafter vehicle was brought from the place of accident to authorised service centre M/s. Yashveer Motor N.H.21 Patli Khul District Kullu who handed over a bill of Rs.287050.80 paise (Two lac eight seven thousand fifty and eighty paise) excluding vat charges. It is further pleaded that complainant intimated opposite party about accident. It is pleaded that opposite party repudiated claim on the ground that complainant has not submitted driving licence of deceased Shri Roshal Lal who was driving vehicle at the time of accident. Complainant sought relief to release accident claim to the tune of Rs.387050.80/- (Three lac eight seven thousand fifty and eighty paise) along with 12% interest till realization. Complainant also sought additional relief of Rs.20000/- (Twenty thousand) for mental torture and complainant also sought additional relief to the tune of Rs.5000/- (Five thousand) as litigation costs. 3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party pleaded therein that complaint is not maintainable. It is pleaded that insured had violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is pleaded that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. It is pleaded that insurance company appointed surveyor and surveyor submitted the report. It is further pleaded that claim was repudiated because driver did not hold valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. It is pleaded that at the time of accident vehicle was driven by Shri Roshan Lal and one Vipin Kumar was also sitting in car at the time of accident. Prayer for dismissal of complaint sought. 4. It is further pleaded that claim was repudiated because driver did not hold valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. It is pleaded that at the time of accident vehicle was driven by Shri Roshan Lal and one Vipin Kumar was also sitting in car at the time of accident. Prayer for dismissal of complaint sought. 4. Learned District Forum allowed the complaint and ordered opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.214154/- (Two lac fourteen thousand one hundred fifty four) to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till the date of actual payment. Learned District Forum further ordered opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.10000/- (Ten thousand) to complainant as punitive compensation on account of harassment and mental agony and learned District Forum further ordered that opposite party would also pay Rs.5000/- (Five thousand) as litigation costs. Learned District Forum further ordered that order would be complied by opposite party within a period of 45 days after the receipt of copy of order. Feeling aggrieved against the order passed by learned District Forum insurance company i.e. Oriental Insurance Company filed present appeal before State Commission. 5. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully. 6. Following points arises for determination in present appeal. 1. Whether complaint filed by complainant and version filed by opposite party under Consumer Protection Act 1986 could be treated as evidence under section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 in order to adjudicate consumer dispute inter se parties wherein controversial question of facts is involved. 2. Final order. Findings upon point No.1 with reasons: 7. After perusal of complaint and version filed by opposite party learned District Forum proceeded to settle consumer dispute inter se parties. Learned District Forum directed parties to produce evidence. On dated 08.08.2014 learned Advocate Shri Pankaj Sharma appeared on behalf of complainant and stated that complaint along with documents Annexure-C1 to C8 already filed be read in evidence and closed evidence on behalf of complainant. Similarly on dated 17.08.2015 learned Advocate appeared on behalf of opposite party has stated that version along with affidavit and documents Annexure-OP1 to OP5 already filed be read in evidence and sought date for adducing remaining evidence. Similarly on dated 17.08.2015 learned Advocate appeared on behalf of opposite party has stated that version along with affidavit and documents Annexure-OP1 to OP5 already filed be read in evidence and sought date for adducing remaining evidence. Thereafter on dated 04.09.2015 learned Advocate appeared on behalf of opposite party has given written statement before learned District Forum that he does not want to file any evidence and closed evidence on behalf of opposite party. 8. It is held that proceedings under Consumer Protection Act 1986 are quasi judicial proceedings. It is held that complaint and version filed by parties under Consumer Protection Act 1986 are not evidence of the parties qua question of facts under section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 but are only pleadings of the parties qua question of facts inter se parties. It is held that pleadings and evidence upon question of facts are two different concepts under law. It is held that complaint and version are not evidence on question of facts in consumer dispute case but are only pleadings of parties qua question of facts. See 2004(2) CPC 128 Punjab Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Ranjit Kaur. Also see 2000(2) CPC 697 Kerala B Suresh v. The Secretary K.S.E.B. 9. As per Section 2(c) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 complaint means any allegation in writing made by a complainant. The complaint has been defined as allegation under Consumer Protection Act 1986 and has not been defined as evidence under Consumer Protection Act 1986. As per section 2(e) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 consumer disputes means a dispute where the person against whom a complaint has been made denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint. As per section 13 (4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 evidence can be received by way of affidavits in consumer disputes cases qua adjudication of facts. 10. It is held that evidence under Consumer Protection Act 1986 can be adduced on following modes. (i) on oath (ii) on affidavits. Evidence on affidavits under Consumer Protection Act 1986 is a rule and evidence on oath is exception in consumer dispute cases. 10. It is held that evidence under Consumer Protection Act 1986 can be adduced on following modes. (i) on oath (ii) on affidavits. Evidence on affidavits under Consumer Protection Act 1986 is a rule and evidence on oath is exception in consumer dispute cases. It is held that affidavit filed in support of complaint and affidavit filed in support of version could be treated as affidavits filed in support of pleadings only and could not be treated as evidence filed in support of question of controversial facts to be adjudicated by consumer Forum. 11. It is held that learned District Forum has committed material procedural irregularity by way of treating complaint and version filed by parties as evidence in consumer dispute case while adjudicating question of facts inter se parties. It is held that rectification of material procedural irregularity is essential in the present case on the principle of natural justice and in the ends of justice. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2: Final Order 12. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal is allowed. Order of learned District Forum dated 15.03.2016 announced in consumer complaint No.61 of 2013 title Diwan Singh v. Branch Manager Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. is set aside. Complaint is remanded back to learned District Forum for disposal of complaint afresh strictly in accordance with law after obtaining evidence of parties by way of affidavits upon question of facts as mentioned under section 13(4)(iii) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 relating to consumer dispute and thereafter settle consumer dispute inter se parties. Learned District Forum will dispose of complaint within three months. Statement of learned Advocate appeared on behalf of complainant dated 08.08.2014 and statement of learned Advocate appeared on behalf of opposite party dated 17.08.2015 and 04.09.2015 will form part and parcel of this order. Observation will not effect merits of the case in any manner. Parties are directed to appear before learned District Forum Shimla on 27.04.2017. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. 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.