Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7.     The OP preferred a revision petition against the said order dated 4/10/12 being RP No. 14/12 and Shri. A.R. Kantak after relying on Dr. J.J. Merchant, 2002 (6) SCC 635 and Smt. Indrani Bhattacharjee  (order dated 3/12/04 of the National Commission) withdrew  the  revision petition which was dismissed as withdrawn.

   

8.     The OP thereafter delivered interrogatories to the complainant's witnesses and as far as CW-1 is concerned, as many as 70 interrogatories were delivered to him which he answered on affidavit on or about 11/03/13.  As far as CW-5 is concerned 42 interrogatories were delivered to him and the same were answered by him on or about 28/7/14.  

9.     The OP filed two applications on 29/04/13 one to differ of putting interrogatories to CW-5, only after the interrogatories were answered by CW-2, CW-3 and CW-4 and the other for oral cross examination of CW-1. Both these applications were dismissed.  This was after the Complainant/CW-1 answered the interrogatories on affidavit on or about 11/3/13.  The second application was dismissed with the following observations:

"2. If complainant chooses not to reply /evade answers, he may choose to do so even during an oral cross examination".
 

18.     In our view, there is no question of oral cross examination of either the complainant/CW-1 or engineer Shri. Chauhan/CW-5.  The OP can always give evidence/file an affidavit and fill in, in case there is any vagueness, in the answers given either by CW-1 or by CW-5 or give further details or clarify the answers given in case such clarification is required.  We endorse the finding given in para 3 of the order dated 4/4/14 by the Lr. District Forum to which we have already  made  reference more  than once and proceed to dismiss the FA in relation to both the orders dated 26/11/14 (copies of which we find on record) but reference made to only one of them.  We are also of the view that the order dated 16/12/14 in imposing costs of Rs. 2,000/- cannot be faulted as nothing prevented the OP to file their affidavit-in-evidence, more so when the complainant No. 1 and other witnesses had filed their affidavits-in-evidence much earlier and so also affidavits answering the interrogatories.