State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sisal Goat Farm Through Shri.Anandrao ... vs Shri.Dilip Subrao Thorat on 7 January, 2019
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Revision Petition No.RP/18/82
Sisal Goat Farm
Gondilwadi, Palus
Through
1.Shri Anandrao Tukaram Sisal
2. Shri Govind Tukaram Sisal
3. Shri Sandip Tukaram Sisal
All R/o. Sisal Goat Farm
Gondilwadi, Palus
Taluka Palus, District Sangli .....Revision petitioners
Versus
Shri Dilip Subrao Thorat
R/o.Rethare Harnaksh
Near Reliance Tower .........Respondent
Taluka Walwa, District Sangli
BEFORE: Justice A.P.Bhangale, President
Usha S.Thakare, Judicial Member
ORAL ORDER
Per Hon'ble Justice A.P.Bhangale, President
1. None present for revision petitioners. Mr.Nikhil Pawar-Advocate with authority letter for respondent. On 06/12/2018 as also earlier on 19/11/2018 no one appeared for revision petitioners. We had granted adjournment by way of last chance for final hearing of this revision petition. We heard submissions advanced on behalf of the respondent, who opposed revision petition on the ground that the impugned order by which permission for cross examination of the witness of the complainant was refused on the ground that under Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Examination-in-chief and cross examination is not permissible. Reliance is placed upon ruling in the matter of Dr.Uttamkumar Samanta V/s. Bharti Airtel Limited and ors. reported in 2014(3) CPR 664 (NC). Hon'ble National Commission in para nos.12 to 14 in the judgment had explained the facts in the case. According to Hon'ble National Commission, the cases 1 under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are required to be decided on the basis of affidavits only. All the complicated and intricate questions of law put forward by the complainant cannot be decided in a summary fashion. The examination of witnesses and their cross-examination is therefore not permissible under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. All the questions raised entail a lot of evidence and needs proper investigation. The allegations must stand proved in accordance with the law.
2. In para 13 Hon'ble National Commission also observed that it is pertinent to know that cross examination of the witnesses is the life/blood of our legal system. It is the only way, a Judge can decide whom to trust and an answer, during cross-examination, may wreck one's case. It is painfully apparent that it is impossible to gauge the real issue. This Commission can go into the subject, only skin deep. In that view of the matter in that case complaint was dismissed with a liberty to complainant to approach the Civil Court/ High Court or Apex Court to get redressal of his grievance as per law.
3. In the present case, our attention is invited to the affidavit labelled as 'सरतपासाचे अॅ फडेि हट', which itself means affidavit is treated as Examination-in-chief of one Dr.Suresh Krushna Barge, aged about 48 years resident of Rethareharnaksh, Taluka Walwa, District Sangli. He made affidavit by way of evidence and it is accepted on record. That being so, in our view, though it is normally not permissible to allow cross examination of witnesses and even examination in chief, in the present case, affidavit by way of examination in chief is acceptable by the Learned District Forum for the reasons best known to it. That being so, an application was made on behalf of opponent to question the witness by way of cross examination. Learned District Forum could have permitted interrogatories on the basis of affidavit tendered as evidence in examination in chief or could have allowed cross examination relevant to the facts stated by way of examination in 2 chief in the affidavit of Dr.Suresh Krushna Barge for the complainant. We therefore think that since witness was examined in chief by way of affidavit, his cross examination is permissible to that limited extent relevant to the facts stated in the affidavit by way of examination in chief. We therefore direct the Learned District Forum to allow either interrogatories limited to the facts stated in examination in chief affidavit or in its discretion cross examination may be allowed of Dr.Suresh Krushna Barge limited and relevant to the facts stated in the affidavit by way of examination in chief. Revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. We direct the Learned District Forum to dispose of the complaint expeditiously and as early as possible. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced on 7th January, 2019.
[Justice A.P.Bhangale] PRESIDENT [Usha S.Thakare] JUDICIAL MEMBER Ms 3