State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mrs. Sheela Camilo vs Mrs. Sunita Siriskar on 3 August, 2011
THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PANAJI GOA Present: Honourable Shri. Jagdish Prabhudesai ..Member Honourable Smt. Vidhya R. Gurav Member Revision No. 5/2011 1. Mrs. Sheela Camilo wife of Mr. Santano C.I. Camilo, of full age, housewife and her husband. 2. Mr. Santano C.I. Camilo s/o late Ignatius Camilo both resident of Villa No. 4. Shangrilla Complex I. Combia Morod, Guirim, Bardez-Goa. ..Appellants V/s. 1. Mrs. Sunita Siriskar sole proprietor of M/s. Simran Developers and having her office at Office No. 6, 4th Floor, Comunidade Ghor, Angod, Mapusa, Bardez, Goa, resident of CE1, First Floor, Eden woods Co-operative Housing Society, Taleigao, Caranzalem, Panaji-403 002, and her husband. 2. Mr. Sanjeev Siriskar of full age, residing at and having his office at Office No. 6, 4th Floor, Communidade Ghor, Angod, Mapusa, Bardez, Goa Resident of CE 1, First Floor, Eden woods Co-operative Housing Society, Taleigao, Caranzalem, Panaji-403 002, .Respondents Contd.2/- -2- Adv. R. Colvalcar present for the Appellant. Adv. R. Narvekar present for the Respondent. Dated: 03/08/2011 ORDER
[ Per Shri. Jagdish Prabhudesai, ..Member ]
1. By this order we shall disposed off the present revision application filed by the Appellant challenging the order dated 05/01/2011 passed by the North forum in complaint No. 179/2000. The Respondent have filed the reply inter alia thereto the said revision. Today we have heard the argument advanced by the Advocate for the Appellant and Learned Advocate Narvekar for the Respondent. Gone through the records. At the outset it has to be mentioned that the complaint pending before the forum is a longer standing one. In the present application the applicant has prayed for the following relief:-
a.
That the present revision be allowed.
b.
That the impugned order dated 5-1-2011 be quashed and set aside.
c.
That the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum North Goa at Porvorim be directed to direct the Commissioner to give a fresh or additional report on the items that were not mentioned in his report but which were required to be mentioned in terms of the order dated 8-12-2009.
d.
That the records & proceedings of the trial court be called for e.
That any other order be passed which may be deemed fit and proper.
2. The Impugned Order dated 05/01/2011 passed by the lower forum, though does not specifically mention the names of the member of the forum who passed it but however it is signed by both the members. The said Order is very much an un-reasoned and criptic order.
Contd3/-
-3-3. It is not crucial as to what objections were raised and what was the matter considered while passing the Impugned Order. Clearly the lower forum was justified to appoint the new commissioner to inspect complainants villa and submit report in view of the order passed by this commission dated 08/12/2009. It is true that the Commissioner appointed by the lower forum Shri. M.G. Chandrashekar has given his report dated 01/02/2010. It appears from the arguments of both the parties before us that they have serious doubts and the queries to be raised as regards the said report. In order to decide the matter it is our considered opinion that both the parties to the present application deserves to be given enough and fair opportunity to test the veracity and credibility submitted by the said Commissioner Mr. M.G. Chandrashekar dated 01/02/2011 in order to ascertain as to where does the truth lies. Such an opportunity to cross examine the said commissioner has to be by way of cross examination only by way of putting the witnesses in the witness box and not by way of questionnaire to be answered in Affidavit.
4. Hence in the interest of justice we partly allow this revision application and modify the Impugned Order. We disposed off the said present application and direct the lower forum to allowing both the parties hereto to cross examine the said Commissioner by putting him in the witness box. The District forum shall complete the process of cross examination within 3 months.
5. Accordingly the reliefs in the Impugned Order granted at italics 1, 2, & 3 become redundant and hence the Impugned Order is hereby set aside subject to the above directions. The party shall appear before the lower forum on 11/08/2011.
[ Jagdish Prabhudesai ] Member [ Vidhya R. Gurav ] Member