KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION No. 22/2022

ORDER DATED: 29.04.2022

(Against the Order in I.A. 64/2022 in C.C. 225/17 of CDRC, Kottayam)

PRESENT:

SRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH                                                       : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI.RANJIT. R                                                                   : MEMBER

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A                                              : MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                        : MEMBER

REVISON PETITIONER:

Ajmal Khan, Valickal House, Kanjirappally P.O., Kottayam.

(By Adv. D.R. Rajesh)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Oriental Insurance Company represented by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Cheeranveli Building, Near Mini Civil Station, Kanjirappally, Kanjirappally P.O., Kottayam-686 507.

ORDER

SRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH: JUDICIAL MEMBER

The complainant in C.C. No. 225/2017 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kottayam (in short the District Commission) has filed this revision petition against the order passed by the District Commission in I.A. 64/2022 by which the petition filed by him to re-open the evidence was dismissed.

Heard the counsel for the revision petitioner and perused the order passed by the District Commission. 

The revision petitioner/complainant has filed the petition to re-open the evidence after closing the evidence, after the examination of the witness of opposite party, when the complaint was posted for hearing.  Earlier, on the side of the complainant PW1 & PW2 were examined.  Complainant sought to re-open the evidence to examine a witness.  Complainant has not given any sufficient reason for the non-examination of witness during the time of evidence.  As observed by the District Commission, the complainant has filed the petition to fill up the lacuna in the evidence at the later stage.  On going through the order passed by the District Commission it can be seen that the District Commission dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner/complainant by a detailed order after considering all these aspects. 

We consider that there is no illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the District Commission which warrants interference by this Commission in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.  The revision petition is without any merit and is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, the revision petition is dismissed.

                                  T.S.P. MOOSATH   : JUDICIAL MEMBER

                     RANJIT. R                : MEMBER

                                    BEENA KUMARY. A         : MEMBER

jb                                                                                            RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER