LIC OF INDIA Vs. GHEESI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Sec.17 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against, (i) the order dated 24.7.2002 whereby the D. F. proceeded to hear the complaint of the non-petitioner ex parte and (ii) the order dated 15.11.2002, whereby the D. F. rejected petitioner's application to set aside the ex parte order and to take on record its reply as also the evidence in support of such reply.

(2.) Heard the learned Counsel. We agree with the learned Counsel for the petitioner that looking to the aims and objects of the C. P. Act, 1986 and the procedure to be adopted for redressal of the grievances of the parties concerned, the Forums under the Act are required not to shut the doors of justice upon them during the pendency of the complaint. As technical rules of evidence and the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Code relating to filing of replies and production of documents are not applicable to the proceedings under the C. P. Act, 1986 (the Act) the Redressal Agencies under the Act should not consider themselves helpless in formulating such a procedure in accordance with the provisions contained in the Act as advances and promotes the cause of finally settling the dispute between the parties as early as possible and practicable, after having provided proper opportunity of being heard to them. Procedural sins should not cause death of the legitimate rights of the parties. At the same time attempts of such litigants who deliberately want to prolong the litigation by misusing or abusing the due process of law should be foiled with iron hands.

(3.) It is true that in the instant case, the D. F. had proceeded ex parte against the petitioner because the petitioner did not put in appearance before it, despite service of notice. Even then the D. F. should have been alive to the fact that no case is decided against a person without giving him opportunity of being heard if such person appears before it during the pendency of the proceedings, and wants to place the version of his case before it. The D. F. may compensate the other party by levy of cost under such circumstances.