Kerala High Court
Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company ... vs The Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum on 14 February, 2012
Author: S. Siri Jagan
Bench: S.Siri Jagan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/25TH MAGHA 1933
WP(C).No. 3674 of 2012 (H)
---------------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
--------------------
HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
4E,4TH FLOOR, KG OXFORD BUSINESS CENTRE,
SREEKANDATH ROAD, RAVIPURAM, KOCHI 682016,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER - LEGAL AMBILI GEORGE.
BY ADVS.SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE
SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE
SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------------
1. THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA,
BEACH ROAD, BAZAR P.O., ALAPPUZHA 688012,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SUPERINTENDENT
2. RAJESH KUMAR,
CHAKKALAYIL VEEDU, PARUMALA P.O. KADAPRA MURI
THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA 689626
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 14-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
svs
W.P.(C). NO. 3674/2012
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
P1: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN C.C. 190/2011 OF CDRF, ALAPPUZHA
P2: COPY OF THE VERSION IN C.C 190/2011 OF CDRF, ALAPPUZHA
P3: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE CDRF, ALAPPUZHA IN I.A 20/2012 IN
C.C. NO.190/2011 DT 20/01/2012.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.A. TO JUDGE.
svs
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W.P(C) No. 3674 of 2012
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 14th day of February, 2012.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner challenges Ext.P3 order of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alappuzha, by which the Forum rejected the request of the petitioner to cross examine the complainant in C.C.No. 190 of 2011 on the proof affidavit filed by him on the ground that the procedure before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum is summary in nature and it is not necessary that in the said case, the complainant would be permitted to be cross examined by the opposite party.
I am of opinion that the petitioner's remedy lies in challenging Ext.P3 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission as provided under the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, without prejudice to that right, this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/