ORDER P.S. Rana (R), President. - Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 04.03.2016 passed by Learned District Forum in consumer complaint No. 157/2012 title Sanjeev Chauhan vs. Mahindra Renault Private Limited & Anr. Brief facts of Case: 2. Complainant Sanjeev Chauhan filed consumer complaint against the opposite parties pleaded therein that complainant is unemployed youth. It is pleaded that complainant purchased a Mahindra Renault car and plied as a taxi for earning his livelihood. It is pleaded that after purchase of vehicle complainant took the vehicle to temple Jawala Ji. It is further pleaded that when complainant was on his way from Kangra to Solan then vehicle started giving problem. It is pleaded that all of a sudden vehicle stopped at Una. It is pleaded that gear oil of vehicle was leaked. It is further pleaded that said fact was brought to the notice of opposite party No. 2. It is pleaded that opposite party No. 2 advised complainant to put gear oil in the gear box and bring the vehicle to service station of opposite party No. 2. It is pleaded that thereafter vehicle was brought to service station of opposite party No. 2 and same was repaired by opposite party No. 2. It is further pleaded that at the time of purchase of vehicle complainant was told that first three services of vehicle would be free. It is further pleaded that when vehicle was brought for service then opposite party No. 2 advised complainant to change timing belt. It is further pleaded that timing belt was changed and complainant paid Rs. 4867/- (Four thousand eight hundred sixty seven). It is further pleaded that thereafter on dated 02.10.2011 when complainant was driving vehicle from Solan to Jammu for a trip of all temples and when vehicle reached near Jammu on dated 03.10.2011 all of a sudden vehicle stopped. It is further pleaded that immediately complainant contacted opposite party No. 2 and brought the said fact to the notice of opposite party No. 2. It is further pleaded that immediately complainant contacted opposite party No. 2 and brought the said fact to the notice of opposite party No. 2. It is further pleaded that opposite party No. 2 informed complainant that M/s. Shuhal Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. is authorized dealer of Mahindra & Mahindra and advised complainant to contact M/s. Shuhal Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. It is further pleaded that thereafter complainant contacted M/s. Shuhal Automobiles Pvt. Ltd and it was found that timing belt of vehicle was broken. It is further pleaded that vehicle was brought by crane from Jammu to Chandigarh and amount of Rs. 18000/- (Eighteen thousand) was charged. It is further pleaded that opposite party No. 2 flatly refused to help the complainant and told complainant that opposite party No. 2 did not possess parts of vehicle and it would take about three months for repair. It is further pleaded that due to adamant behaviour on the part of opposite party No. 2 complainant got his vehicle repaired at Chandigarh from Dhiman Automobiles and paid amount. It is further pleaded that timing belt in question was replaced on the advice of opposite party No. 2. It is further pleaded that defect occurred in the vehicle during the warranty period and it is pleaded opposite parties have committed deficiency in service. Complainant sought relief to the tune of Rs. 60000/-(Sixty thousand) on account of loss of profit caused to the complainant due to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Complainant also sought additional relief of payment of whole expenses to the tune of Rs. 98136/- (Ninety eight thousand one hundred thirty six) incurred by complainant for repair of vehicle and for spares parts of vehicle. Complainant also sought additional relief of Rs. 17920/- (Seventeen thousand nine hundred twenty) which petitioner incurred for his staying at Chandigarh alongwith one driver including meals and wages. Complainant also sought additional relief of Rs. 100000/- (One lac) for mental agony and harassment. 3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party No. 1 pleaded therein that complaint filed by complainant is not maintainable. It is pleaded that complainant has concealed material facts from consumer forum. It is further pleaded that complaint is barred by delay and latches. It is further pleaded that vehicle was purchased in October 2009 and present complaint was filed in April 2012. It is pleaded that complainant has concealed material facts from consumer forum. It is further pleaded that complaint is barred by delay and latches. It is further pleaded that vehicle was purchased in October 2009 and present complaint was filed in April 2012. It is further pleaded that complaint is barred under section 24A of Consumer Protection Act 1986. It is further pleaded that complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is further pleaded that M/s. Shuhal Automobiles is necessary party in the present complaint. It is pleaded that opposite party No. 1 did not committee any deficiency in service. Prayer for dismissal of complaint sought. 4. Per contra separate version filed on behalf of opposite party No. 2 pleaded therein that complaint against opposite party No. 2 is not maintainable on account of act, conduct, deed and acquiescence of complainant. It is pleaded that complainant has concealed true and material facts from District Forum. It is pleaded that vehicle was plied for commercial purpose. It is further pleaded that complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer under Consumer Protection Act 1986. It is further pleaded that complainant has himself violated conditions of warranty. It is further pleaded that complainant got Mahindra Renault car repaired from unauthorized service station. It is further pleaded that present complaint is barred because complainant has purchased Mahindra Renault car in October 2009 and it is pleaded that complaint was filed by complainant in the month of April 2012 beyond the period of limitation of two years prescribed under Consumer Protection Act 1986. Prayer for dismissal of complaint sought. 5. Complainant filed rejoinders and reasserted allegations mentioned in the complaint. 6. Learned District Forum dismissed complaint filed by complainant. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Forum complainant filed present appeal before State Commission. 7. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully. 8. Following points arises for determination in present appeal. 1. Whether learned District Forum committed material procedural irregularity by way of treating complaint and versions (Pleadings of parties) as evidence of parties under section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 for adjudication of consumer disputes complaint. 2. Final order. Findings upon point No. 1 with reasons: 9. 8. Following points arises for determination in present appeal. 1. Whether learned District Forum committed material procedural irregularity by way of treating complaint and versions (Pleadings of parties) as evidence of parties under section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 for adjudication of consumer disputes complaint. 2. Final order. Findings upon point No. 1 with reasons: 9. After perusal of complaint and versions filed by opposite parties learned District Forum came to the conclusion that opposite parties have disputed allegations contained in complaint and thereafter learned District Forum ordered the parties to adduce evidence. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of complainant namely Ms. Vandna Thakur has given statement before learned District Forum on dated 03.06.2014that complaint alongwith annexures C-1 to C-11 already filed with complaint be read in evidence and closed the evidence. It is proved on record that learned advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 1 namely Mr. Vineet Guleria has given statement before learned District Forum on dated 07.05.2015that version alongwith affidavit already filed be read in evidence and closed the evidence. It is also proved on record that learned advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 2 namely Prince Chauhan has given statement before learned District Forum on dated 07.05.2015that version alongwith affidavit already filed be read in evidence and closed the evidence. 10. As per section 13(2) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 if opposite party denies or disputes allegations contained in complaint then District Forum would proceed to settle consumer dispute on the basis of evidence brought to the notice of District Forum by complainant and opposite party. In the present case it is proved on record that opposite parties deny and dispute the allegations contained in complaint. 11. It is held that complaint and versions filed by the parties are pleadings of the parties and cannot be treated as evidence of parties under section 13 (4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 for adjudication of consumer disputes inter se parties unless allegations of facts mentioned in complaint are admitted by opposites parties in version. It is held that as per section 13 (4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 evidence in consumer disputes can be filed by way of affidavits. It is held that as per section 13 (4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 evidence in consumer disputes can be filed by way of affidavits. Section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 is quoted in toto:- "13(4) For the purposes of this section the District Forum shall have the same powers as are vested in a civil court under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) while trying a suit in respect of the following matters namely:-] (i) Summoning and enforcing the attendance of any defendant or witness and examining the witness on oath. (ii) Discovery and production of any document or other material object producible as evidence. (iii) Reception of evidence on affidavits. (iv) Requisitioning of the report of the concerned analysis or test from the appropriate laboratory or from any other relevant source. (v) Issuing of any commission for the examination of any witness. (vi) Any other matter which may be prescribed. 12. It is held that complaint is defined under section 2(c) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 as allegation in writing made by complainant. It is held that complaint is only allegation in writing made by complainant and could not be treated as evidence of complainant under section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. State Commission is of the opinion that there is difference between allegation in writing and evidence under section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. State Commission is of the opinion that complaint and version are only pleadings of parties. State Commission is of the opinion that pleadings of parties and evidence of parties under section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 are entirely two different concepts under Consumer Protection Act 1986. State Commission is of the opinion that complaint and version which are pleadings of parties could not be treated as evidence of parties under section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. State Commission is of the opinion that there is no provision under Section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 to treat complaint and version as evidence of parties under section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. State Commission is of the opinion that Learned District Forum was under legal obligation to obtain evidence of parties strictly as per mode mentioned under section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. It is held that proceedings under Consumer Protection Act 1986 are quasi-judicial proceedings. State Commission is of the opinion that Learned District Forum was under legal obligation to obtain evidence of parties strictly as per mode mentioned under section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. It is held that proceedings under Consumer Protection Act 1986 are quasi-judicial proceedings. State Commission is of the opinion that Learned District Forum has committed material procedural irregularity by way of treating complaint and versions as evidence of parties under section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 for adjudicating consumer disputes of parties. State Commission is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice to dispose of appeal on merits unless material procedural irregularity is not rectified. Point No. 1 is answered accordingly. Point No. 2: Final Order 13. In view of findings upon point No. 1 above appeal is allowed and order of learned District Forum Shimla dated 04.03.2016 announced in consumer complaint No. 157/2012 title Sanjeev Chauhan vs. Mahindra Renault Private Limited is set aside. Complaint is remanded back to learned District Forum for decision afresh. Learned District Forum would receive evidence of parties by way of affidavits relating to controversial facts strictly as per modes mentioned under section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. It is further ordered that after receiving evidence of parties learned District Forum will dispose of complaint afresh strictly in accordance with law and proved facts. Learned District Forum will dispose of complaint expeditiously within three months after receipt of file. Observations will not effect merits of the case. Parties are directed to appear before learned District Forum Shimla on 31.07.2017. Statements of learned advocates dated 03.06.2014, 07.05.2015, 16.07.2015 will form part and parcel of order. Observations will not effect the merits of the case in any manner. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. File of learned District Forum alongwith 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.