State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Capt. D.N. Badoni on 14 May, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
REVISION PETITION NO. 05 / 2012
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited
Branch Office - I, Property No. 3/5
Astley Hall, Dehradun through
Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited
Divisional Office, 4-B, Sachdeva Colony
Haridwar Road, Dehradun
......Revisionist / Opposite Party
Versus
Capt. D.N. Badoni S/o Sh. Gokul Dev Badoni
R/o Village Ladpur, P.O. Raipur
District Dehradun
......Respondent / Complainant
Sh. M.K. Kohli, Learned Counsel for the Revisionist
Sh. H.L. Khanna, Authorised Representative of Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.C. Kandpal, President
Mr. C.C. Pant, Member
Dated: 14/05/2013
ORDER
Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President (Oral):
This revision petition under Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been preferred against the order dated 18.11.2011 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 52 of 2005, whereby the District Forum has summoned the Branch Manager of the revisionist - opposite party (insurance company) for cross-examination.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent - complainant has filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party - insurance company. During the pendency of the consumer complaint, the complainant moved an application dated 24.10.2011 (Paper No. 7) before the District Forum, for summoning 2 the Divisional Manager of the insurance company for cross-examination, on the ground that the documents filed by the insurance company relating to insurance policy are not genuine.
3. Against the said application, the revisionist - insurance company filed objections dated 18.11.2011 (Paper Nos. 8 to 9), stating therein that the copy of the policy has been filed; that since the policy has not been issued by the Divisional Manager and the same does not bear his signatures and, as such, the Divisional Manager can not be summoned.
4. The District Forum vide impugned order dated 18.11.2011, summoned the Branch Manager of the insurance company for cross-examination. Aggrieved by the said order, the insurance company has filed this revision petition.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and the authorised representative of respondent - complainant and have also perused the record.
6. In our view, the purpose of eliciting required information from the Branch Manager of the insurance company shall be equally served even by filing interrogatories, to be answered by him and hence there was no need for the District Forum to have summoned the Branch Manager of the insurance company for cross-examination. Learned counsel for the revisionist pressed into service the decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Mani Square Limited and others Vs. Vinita Agrawal and others; I (2010) CPJ 150 (NC), wherein it was held that the purpose of eliciting required information from witness shall be equally served even by filing interrogatories, to be answered by the witness and the revision petition was dismissed. Learned counsel for the revisionist cited another decision of the Hon'ble National Commission rendered in the case of Institute of 3 Laparoscopic Surgery, Jeevan Satya and another Vs. Bimal Kumar Ghosh; I (2008) CPJ 470 (NC). In the said case, 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.
7. In view of above, the order impugned passed by the District Forum for summoning the Branch Manager of the insurance company for cross-examination, can not be sustained. However, the respondent
- complainant shall, for the purpose of eliciting required information, serve the interrogatories upon the Branch Manager of the insurance company, which shall be replied by him within a period of 15 days' from the date of serving the interrogatories. The interrogatories shall be served by the respondent - complainant upon the insurance company by 10.06.2013 and the reply to the same shall be submitted by the Branch Manager of the insurance company positively by 27.06.2013. As the matter is very old and the consumer complaint pertains to the year 2005, therefore, the District Forum shall decide the consumer complaint after taking into consideration the relevant documents on record, within a period of two months thereafter. The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 21.05.2013.
8. In the light of aforesaid discussion, revision petition is allowed in the above terms and the impugned order dated 18.11.2011 passed by the District Forum stands modified accordingly. No order as to costs.
(C.C. PANT) (JUSTICE B.C. KANDPAL) K