State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Saeed Ahmed vs Shivcharan Singh Bhandari on 27 April, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
REVISION PETITION NO. 06 / 2012
Sh. Saeed Ahmed S/o late Sh. Sharif Ahmed
R/o Village Mehuwala Mafi
Dehradun
......Revisionist / Opposite Party
Versus
Sh. Shivcharan Singh Bhandari S/o late Sh. Gabbar Singh Bhandari
R/o 181, Van Vihar Colony, Mehuwala Mafi
Dehradun
......Respondent / Complainant
Sh. Musa Khan, Learned Counsel for the Revisionist
Sh. J.P. Kansal, Learned Counsel for Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.C. Kandpal, President
Mr. C.C. Pant, Member
Mrs. Kusum Lata Sharma, Member
Dated: 27/04/2012
ORDER
(Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President):
This revision petition under Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been preferred against the order dated
02.03.2012 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 19 of 2010, thereby dismissing the application dated 02.03.2012 moved by the revisionist - opposite party for permitting him to cross-examine the complainant.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as stated in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant has entered into an agreement with the opposite party for construction of his residential house. The complainant has alleged that the opposite party has used sub-standard material and has left certain work incomplete. Alleging deficiency in 2 service on the part of the opposite party, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun.
3. The opposite party filed written statement before the District Forum, denying the allegations made in the consumer complaint.
4. The opposite party also moved an application dated 02.03.2012 before the District Forum, for permitting him to cross-examine the complainant. The District Forum vide impugned order dated 02.03.2012, dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the said order, the revisionist has filed this revision petition.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
6. Prior to the application dated 02.03.2012 moved by the revisionist before the District Forum for permitting him to cross-examine the complainant and his two experts / Engineers, who have submitted their expert report in the matter, the District Forum vide order dated 22.11.2011 disposed of the said application and summoned the two Engineers for cross-examination, but rejected the prayer of the revisionist to cross-examine the complainant. The revisionist did not challenge the said order passed by the District Forum and in pursuance of the order dated 22.11.2011, the complainant produced the said two Engineers for cross-examination and they were cross-examined on behalf of the revisionist.
7. The revisionist after the cross-examination of the two Engineers, again moved an application for cross-examination of the complainant and the District Forum after analyzing the entire circumstances of the case, came to the conclusion that it does not find 3 any justification for summoning the complainant for cross-examination. As stated above, similar prayer made by the revisionist was turned down by the District Forum vide order dated 22.11.2011 and the said order was not challenged by the revisionist. Even otherwise, the application moved by the revisionist for summoning the complainant appears to be a tactics to delay the proceedings and nothing else. The Engineers who have submitted their expert report in the matter, have been cross-examined on behalf of the revisionist and if the revisionist is of the view that any new fact has emerged necessitating the cross-examination of the complainant, he could have very-well served the interrogatories upon the complainant and narrated the questions which he need to put from the complainant, but in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the cross-examination of the complainant is not at all necessary, more so when two Engineers who have submitted their expert report in the matter on behalf of the complainant, have already been cross-examined by the revisionist. Thus, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the District Forum.
8. In the case of Institute of Laparoscopic Surgery, Jeevan Satya and another Vs. Bimal Kumar Ghosh; I (2008) CPJ 470 (NC), the permission for cross-examination of witness was declined and the application was dismissed by the State Commission. The interrogatories for purpose of cross-examination were served by the opposite party and the same were replied by witness. It was held by the Hon'ble National Commission that no interference is required in the impugned order and the revision petition was dismissed. In the case of Mani Square Limited and others Vs. Vinita Agrawal and others; I (2010) CPJ 150 (NC), it was held by the Hon'ble National Commission that the purpose of eliciting required information from 4 witness shall be equally served even by filing interrogatories, to be answered by the witness and the revision petition was dismissed.
9. Learned counsel for the revisionist has cited the decision in the matter of Ramesh Kumar Vs. Kesho Ram; AIR 1992 Supreme Court 700, Mahendra Kumar Agarwal Vs. 2nd Additional District Judge, Nainital and others; [2001 (45) ALR 760] and Kedar Nath Agrawal (Dead) and another Vs. Dhanraji Devi (Dead) by Lrs. And another; [2004 (2) ARC 764], which do not apply to the facts and circumstances of the instant case and do not provide any help to the revisionist.
10. On a careful perusal of the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, we are of the definite view that there is no infirmity or illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by the District Forum and the order passed by the District Forum does not call for any interference by this Commission. Consequently, the revision petition being lack of merit, is liable to be dismissed.
11. With the above observations, revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(SMT. KUSUM LATA SHARMA) (C.C. PANT) (JUSTICE B.C. KANDPAL) K