Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 25.01.2010 passed by the Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panaji in complaint no. 03 of 2008. The order is interlocutory in nature having been passed in miscellaneous application filed by opposite party / appellant seeking permission of the State Commission to cross-examine the complainant. By the impugned order, the State Commission has considered the said prayer of the opposite party and has disposed of the application with the following observations:- “10. In the case at hand, we did not find any special circumstances that would require the complainant to be placed in the witness box for cross-examination. We are inclined to agree with the Counsel for the complainant that such cross examination would invariably negate the very object of the Consumer Protection Act. The judgement in Salgaocar Medical Research Center’s case cited by the opposite party no. 1, to our mind, has no application at all to the facts and circumstances of this case and moreover in the light of JJ Merchant’s case supra. Except for merely contending that that the matter involves complicated questions of facts and that the case of the complainant is fraudulent and fabricated, the opposite parties have not made out any case for personal cross-examination of the complainant. In our view of the dispute, cross-examination of the complainant by giving suggested questions and reply on affidavit would suffice. 11. In light of the foregoing discussions, we did not find any merit in the opposite party’s plea and the same stands dismissed with no order as to costs. Needless to say, this shall not come in the way of the opposite party no. 1 in cross-examining the complainant by giving suggested questions and reply on affidavit, if so desired.” 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant seeks to assail the impugned order on the ground that in view of the defence plea taken by the opposite party in response to the complaint and the material produced on record, more particularly, two reports from the fire department are dated 1.02.2006 and the other dated 29.05.2006 and test report of the Hindustan Petroleum Limited. The State Commission ought to have allowed the request of the appellant to cross-examine the complainant. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions and find that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the summary proceedings envisaged under the Act for trial of complaints as also the practice generally adopted by the consumer fora in the country in disposing of the complaints, the State Commission was justified in declining the prayer for cross-examination of the complainant, more particularly, so when the State Commission has itself permitted the opposite party / appellant to serve a set of interrogatories on the complainant qua the deposition made by her in her affidavit in support of the complaint. In our view the opposite party / appellant should in the first instance avail the said opportunity given to him. However, in case the answer to the interrogatories so delivered by the opposite party / appellant still leaves out something which needs to be further clarified by cross-examination of the complainant, liberty is granted to the opposite party / appellant to seek permission for the cross-examination of the complainant. However, it would be open to the appellant to make its submissions in regard to the genuineness or otherwise of the two fire reports filed on record. With these observations, the appeal stands disposed of.