Khivraj Motors                                                 ...... Petitioners
            Vs.
V. Chandrababu & Anr.                                   ...... Respondents

Before:Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.P.Wadhwa, President, Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.K.Mehra, Member, Mrs. Rajyalakshmi Rao, Member & Mr. B.K.Taimni, Member

PER JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA, J, PRESIDENT

             These two petitions arise out of the proceedings instituted by the first respondent-complainant. Revision petition No. 120/2000 is against the order dated 11/11/1999 of the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission whereby application of the petitioner who was opposite party No. 1 before the District Forum was dismissed. 

             This application was filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for producing additional evidence. State Commission was of the view that since provisions of Civil Procedure Code did not apply, the application was not maintainable. Whatever may be the merits of the case, we do not think State Commission was right in holding that additional evidence cannot be led in the State Commission in appeal. It is not desirable to take a technical view in order to deprive a party of his right. Procedure merely gives guidance as to how justice is to be rendered but the procedure which comes in the way of rendering justice is to be given a go by. Salutary guidance which the Consumer Protection Act provides is that principles of natural justice should be complied. A Consumer Forum is required to follow the rules of natural justice through it is not bound by the strict rules of Code of Civil Procedure. If interest of justice requires that a party be permitted to file some additional evidence of which it was deprived of earlier and there is sufficient cause in favour of the party for not having brought the evidence earlier. Consumer Forum should not stand on any formality and disallow the prayer. Of course, each case will depend on the facts of that case. We however wish to say that there is absolutely no bar in the provisions of the Act that any additional evidence cannot be brought on record before the State Commission while hearing appeal. To that extent, therefore, the order of the State Commission is set aside.

          Revision petition No. 121/2000 is on merit. It is not necessary for us to detail the facts in as much as in the reply filed by the respondent-complainant before this Commission. He admits to have received the amount and says that he has no grievance at all. In this view of the matter, this petition is allowed and the order of the State Commission is set aside. Both the revision petitions are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.