Compliance with procedural requirements in consumer protection proceedings is essential; mere claims of unfairness without evidence do not warrant judicial intervention.

1. The case of the respondent No. 3 is that he owned a house situated at Gulab Bagh, Zakura Srinagar which was razed to ground during the night intervening 7th and 8th of September, 1992. It is contended that the house was insured with the petitioner under Policy No. 421003/48/92. A surveyor was deputed by the petitioner to assess the loss, assessment was made, a report was submitted. It is further contended that the investigation conducted by the police also substantiated the contention of the respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 demanded disbursement as per the assessment. The claim of the respondent No. 3 was not settled despite the fact that the claim was preferred before the petitioner in the year 1992 and ultimately the claim was repudiated in June, 1995, being aggrieved, the respondent No. 3 filed a complaint before the J. and K. Consumer's Protection Commission at Srinagar. The respondent No. 3 adduced evidence in support of his claim, but the petitioner could not produce more than one witness in rebuttal, despite opportunity, consequent upon, the Commission closed evidence by its order dated 15-7-1997, which is reproduced hereunder :
"Counsel for parties present. O. P. has not kept any other witness present. O. P.'s evidence is closed. List for arguments on 13-8-97."

2. This order has the effect of closing the evidence of the opposite party, petitioner herein, therefore, the petitioner assails this order on a sole ground, that the evidence has been closed without affording adequate opportunity, therefore, the order is bad in law.

3. Is this averment of the petitioner sufficient to seek the intervention of the court through the medium of writ petition, seeking a writ of certiorari? This question calls for an answer.

4. One cannot afford to lose sight of the fact that the very purpose of enactment of the J. and K. Consumer Protection Act , 1987 is to ensure better protection of the interests of consumers, which impliedly connotes welfare of consumers, but it does not make available power to the Commission to accept the claims of the consumers without proof, equally is the commission bound to allow the opposite party to refute the complaint by evidence, but, by no stretch of imagination can it be said that an opposite party can prolong the lis till eternity. Once an opportunity has been provided and it is not availed of, the Commission is not bound to provide further opportunity and a party having failed to avail of an opportunity, cannot plead denial of an adequate opportunity. That apart, fact remains that a reasonable opportunity stands provided to the petitioner and the mandate of law has been complied with. Thus challenge thrown to the order impugned by the petitioner on the strength of averment reflected in para No. 2 above cannot sustain a writ against the order of the Commission.

5. No doubt Commission cannot exercise judicial discretion arbitrarily but yet it cannot grant an adjournment for production of evidence on mere asking. Undoubtedly it is within its powers to order an adjournment for production of evidence, provided cogent and tangible reasons are advanced for non - production of evidence and in case reasons are tenable and justifiable, adjournment is warranted.

6. Yet another question arises as to whether a writ of certiorari can be granted on the ground of denial of adequate opportunity to produce evidence. To deal with this question, it is important to bear in mind that in a writ of certiorari, Court is not to sit in appeal on the judgment of the Commission but what is to be seen is :
i) has the Commission acted without jurisdiction or in excess of it o