ORDER P.S. Rana (R) President. - Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 09.11.2016 passed by Learned District Forum in consumer complaint No. 177/2013 title Lokinder Singh v. Senior Divisional Manager Oriental Insurance Company Ltd . Brief facts of Consumer Complaint: 2. Shri Lokinder filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that complainant is owner in possession of land comprised khata No. 102 khatauni No. 218 Khasra No. 1525/1274 measuring 00-02-25 Hect situated at Mauja Dhak Gaon Tehsil Chirgaon District Shimla H.P. as per jamabandi for the year 2008-09. It is pleaded that complainant has constructed two stories house over the said land. It is further pleaded that complainant insured his house with the opposite party. It is pleaded that unfortunately on 21.01.2012 house of the complainant was got damaged due to heavy snowfall. It is further pleaded that surveyor of opposite party visited the spot and prepared loss assessment report to the tune of Rs. 528591/-(Five lac twenty eight thousand five hundred ninety one). It is pleaded that complainant submitted all the documents to the opposite party but opposite party did not settle the claim and committed deficiency in service. Complainant sought relief for payment of Rs. 10.00 lac (Ten lac) and complainant also sought additional relief of payment of Rs. 50000/-(Fifty thousand) on account of mental agony. Complainant also sought additional relief of Rs. 25000/-(Twenty five thousand) on account of litigation expenses. Prayer for acceptance of complaint sought. 3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party pleaded therein that complainant committed breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy. It is pleaded that loss due to snowfall does not cover under the insurance policy. It is further pleaded that complainant did not approach District Consumer Forum with clean hands. It is further pleaded that opposite party did not commit any deficiency in service. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought. 4. Learned District Forum allowed the complaint and directed opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 280806/-(Two lac eighty thousand eight hundred six) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till payment within 45 days from the date of order. In addition learned District Forum ordered opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 10000/-(Ten thousand) as compensation on account of mental agony. 280806/-(Two lac eighty thousand eight hundred six) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till payment within 45 days from the date of order. In addition learned District Forum ordered opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 10000/-(Ten thousand) as compensation on account of mental agony. In addition learned District Forum ordered opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/-(Five thousand) as litigation costs. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Forum 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 arise for determination in present appeal. 1. Whether complaint and version i.e. pleadings could be treated as evidence relating to controversial facts under section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 for adjudication of consumer dispute. 2. Final order. Findings upon point No. 1 with reasons: 7. Learned Advocate appeared on behalf of complainant did not file any evidence by way of affidavit under section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 relating to controversial facts. On 17.06.2015 learned Advocate appeared on behalf of complainant has given statement before learned District Forum that complaint alongwith affidavit be read in evidence. Operative part of statement of learned advocate is quoted in toto:- Statement of Sh. Ranvir Chauhan Advocate for complainant. Without oath 17.06.2015 Complaint alongwith affidavit and documents annexure-C1 to Annexure-C15 already filed be read in evidence and close the evidence on behalf of complainant. Sd/- President Sd/- R.O & A.C Sd/- Member Member. 8. Similarly learned advocate appeared on behalf of opposite party namely Shri P.S. Chandel has given statement before learned District Forum on dated 02.12.2015 that version and annexures OP1 to OP5 already filed be read in evidence. Operative part of statement of learned advocate is quoted in toto:- Statement of Sh. P.S. Chandel Advocate for opposite party. Without oath 02.12.2015 Reply alongwith affidavit and documents annexures OP-1 to OP5 already filed be read in evidence and close the evidence. Sd/- President Sd/- R.O & A.C Sd/- Member 9. Complaint is defined under section 2(c) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 which means allegation in writing made by complainant. It is held that complaint could not be treated as evidence of complainant as per section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 for adjudication of consumer dispute relating to controversial facts. Sd/- President Sd/- R.O & A.C Sd/- Member 9. Complaint is defined under section 2(c) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 which means allegation in writing made by complainant. It is held that complaint could not be treated as evidence of complainant as per section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 for adjudication of consumer dispute relating to controversial facts. It is held that complaint is simply pleading and is not evidence of party relating to controversial facts. It is well settled law that pleading of parties and evidence relating to controversial facts are entirely two different concept under Consumer Protection Act 1986. 10. Similarly it is held that version filed by opposite party could not be treated as evidence of the opposite party under section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 relating to controversial facts. It is held that version filed by opposite party is simply pleading of the party and could not be treated as evidence of the party for adjudication of controversial facts. 11. It is held that evidence could be adduced by the parties under Consumer Protection Act 1986 strictly as per modes mentioned under section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 relating to controversial facts. section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 is quoted in toto :- (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 proceedings under Consumer Protection Act 1986 are quasi judicial proceedings governed under Special Act i.e. Consumer Protection Act 1986. State Commission is of the opinion that pleading is not a substitute for evidence relating to controversial facts. See latest HLJ 2017 H.P 1011 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Champa Devi and others . 13. 12. It is held that proceedings under Consumer Protection Act 1986 are quasi judicial proceedings governed under Special Act i.e. Consumer Protection Act 1986. State Commission is of the opinion that pleading is not a substitute for evidence relating to controversial facts. See latest HLJ 2017 H.P 1011 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Champa Devi and others . 13. It is held that learned District Forum has committed material procedural irregularity by way of treating complaint of complainant and version of opposite party as evidence under section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 qua controversial facts. It is held that it is not expedient in the ends of justice to dispose of complaint on merits unless material procedural irregularity is not rectified. It is held that rectification of material procedural irregularity is essential in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice. In view of above stated facts point No. 1 is decided accordingly. Point No. 2: Final Order 14. In view of findings upon point No. 1 above appeal is allowed. Order of learned District Forum dated 09.11.2016 announced in consumer complaint No. 177/2013 is set aside and complaint is remanded back to learned District Forum for disposal afresh strictly in accordance with law and strictly in accordance with proved facts. It is further ordered that learned District Forum will obtained evidence of complainant and opposite party by way of affidavits strictly as per mode mentioned under section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 relating to controversial facts. Observation will not effect the merits of present complaint in any manner. Statement of learned advocate appeared on behalf of complainant dated 17.06.2015 and statement of learned advocate appeared on behalf of opposite party dated 02.12.2015 will form part and parcel of order. Parties are left with to bear their own costs before State Commission. Parties are directed to appear before learned District Forum Shimla on date 08.03.2018. Learned District Forum will dispose of complaint within two months after receipt of file. 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.