State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sri.Rajendra Babu V vs The Administrator & Others on 19 April, 2011
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. DATED: 19/04/2011 PRESENT THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAMANNA : PRESIDENT SRI.A.M. BENNUR : MEMBER SMT.RAMA ANANTH : MEMBER Review Petition No. 25/2010 1. Sri.Rajendra Babu V s/o Late Venkatappa Aged about 38 years R/at No.38, Railway V.U.Kengeri Bangalore-560060 (By Shri/Smt V.Manjunath ) .. Complainant before the DF .....Appellant/s -Versus- 1. The Administrator Shreya Hospital, No73,6th Cross,3rd Main, Kengeri Satellite Town, Banagalore-60 2. Dr.N.Venkataswamy Shreya Hospital No.73,6th Cross,3rd Main, Kengeri Satellite Town, Banagalore-60 3. The Manager, Mis.Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. No.663,1st Floor,1st Main, Defence Colony,100 ft Road, Indiranagar,1st Stage, Banagalore-38 (By Shri/Smt Legal Excel) . Opposite Parties before the DF .....Respondent/s ORDER
HONBLE JUSTICE K.RAMANNA : PRESIDENT This Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner / complainant with a prayer to set aside the order dated 23.12.2010 and to allow the applications filed by the petitioner by granting permission to cross examine OP-2 and his witnesses.
2. The Revision Petitioner who is the complainant in Complaint No.2653/09 before the 3rd Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum filed interim applications under Section 18 Rule 17 of CPC and u/s 13 (4) of the CP Act to permit to cross examine OP-2 and his witnesses supported by the affidavits.
3. After considering the objections and oral submissions made by both the parties, applications filed by the complainant / revision petitioner came to be dismissed. However, he is permitted to file interrogatories to be answered by OP-2.
Therefore, he has come up with this revision petition.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records.
The point that arises for our consideration is whether the petitioner has shown that the impugned order under challenge dismissing his applications to recall the order and permit him to cross examine OP-2 and its witnesses is just and proper?
5. We have carefully examined the impugned order. It is contended by the petitioner that OP-2 was negligent in treating him.
OP-2 filed its evidence by way of an expert to corroborate its contention. When the matter was posted for arguments on main petition, the Revision Petitioner filed the aforesaid two applications seeking permission to cross examine OP-2 and its witnesses.
6. It is a well settled law that strict procedural laws like Evidence Act and CPC are not applicable in a summary proceeding. The main object of Legislature is to dispose of the cases in a shortest period by adopting summary procedure.
7. When the law permits that the party should not be allowed to cross examine the witnesses facilitating to protract the proceedings. In this behalf the learned counsel for the respondent / OP argued that the National Commission in original petition No.233/1996 held that State Commission as well as the District Forum instead of recording the cross examination may follow the practice of asking the parties to give interrogatories and thereafter reply of interrogatories on affidavits should be taken on record first instead of permitting the lengthy cross examination.
8. The copy of the order was directed to be circulated to all the State Commissions with a request to circulate the same to all the District Forums.
9. It is also a well settled law when the matter is listed for arguments such type of applications should not be entertained when the parties are permitted to serve the interrogatories and get the replies.
10. The order passed by the National Commission is binding on the State Commission as well as on the District Forums. Therefore, we are of the view that the District Forum is right in dismissing the applications filed for seeking permission to cross examine OP-2 and its witnesses but however the DF is right in permitting the petitioner to file interrogatories. Hence we pass the following:
O R D E R Revision Petition is dismissed.
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER Nrr* *