Haryana

StateCommission

RP/106/2019

SURESH KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

LUXMI COLD STORAGE AND ICE FACTORY - Opp.Party(s)

CHANDER SHEKHAR

07 Feb 2020

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

  Revision Petition No.106   of 2019

 Date of Institution:27.12.2019

  Date  of  Decision:07.02.2020

 

Suresh Kumar aged about 58 years, S/o Shri Mehar Chand R/o Village Manka, PS Manki, Tehsil Barara, District Ambala through his Special Power of Attorney Shri Mohinder Pal S/o Shri Mehar Chand R/o Village Manka, P.O. Manki,Tehsil Barara, District Ambala.

…..Petitioner

Versus

 

Luxmi Cold Storage and Ice Factory, Saraswati Nagar (Mustfabad), Sub Tehsil Mustfabad, District Yamuna Nagar through its Prop./Partner.

…..Respondent

 

CORAM:    Mr.Harnam Singh Thakur, Judicial  Member

                    Mrs. Manjula, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Chander Shekhar Singhal, Advocate for the petitioner.

                   Ms.Lipika Dahiya, Advocate for the respondent.

 

                                                 ORDER

HARNAM SINGH THAKUR,  JUDICIAL MEMBER:

           

          Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated  17.10.2019 in complaint No. 399 of 2017 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri (In short ‘the forum) vide which  application for additional evidence was dismissed.

2.      The brief facts of the case are that the complainant kept 445 bags of potato seed with the respondent for storage against the payment, to maintain the same, but it was found damaged, which amounts to deficiency and negligence on the part of the respondent.

3.      The arguments have been advanced by Sh.Chander Shekhar Singhal, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mrs. Lipika Dahiya, the learned counsel for the respondent. With their kind assistance the original file including whatever the evidence has been led on behalf of revisionist had also been properly perused and examined.

4.      During the course of arguments, it is contended by learned counsel for the revisionist that the impugned order dated 17.10.2019 passed by learned District Forum is liable to be set aside as it would cause serious prejudice to the rights of revisionist/complainant.  In fact,  earlier Sh. Saravjit Singh a witness sworn an affidavit dated 28.03.2018,  supporting the case of revisionist, but lateron the respondent filed the affidavit of said Sarvjit Singh dated  05.02.2019 in which he has been denied execution of agreement dated 28.03.2018 but later on Sarvjit Singh has sworn another affidavit dated 29.07.2019 in which he has clarified that he has never executed affidavit dated 05.02.2019 which is forged and fabricated document. According to the learned counsel for the revisionist, the respondent has not only played fraud with the revisionist but has also played fraud with the learned District Forum by producing forged and fabricated document. In such a situation learned district Forum ought to have taken strict notice against the respondent, but, instead it dismissed, the application for additional evidence on surmises and conjunctures by wrongly observing that revisionist wants to delay the proceedings. Hence it is submitted by learned counsel for revisionist/complainant that he should be given chance to lead additional evidence by tendering another affidavit of Sh.Sarvjit Singh S/o Pritam Singh and one Mr.Pardeep Kumar S/o Sumer Chand to substantiate his version.

5.      On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/O.P. contended that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by learned District Forum because revisionist/complainant had already led evidence before filing of written statement by respondent as his defence was already struck off vide order dated  05.12.2018.  Lateron this Commission has set aside the order dated 05.12.2018 passed by the learned District Forum and allowed the respondent to file written statement. Even after filing of the written statement by respondent, revisionist was given an opportunity by the learned District Forum to led additional evidence but same was not availed by him, thus  evidence of complainant was closed. Now revisionist wants to fill up the lacuna in his case as Sh.Sarvjit Singh has already filed affidavit against him which is not forged at all.    In support of his arguments learned counsel placed reliance upon  authority of Hon’ble Delhi High Court titled as Mukesh Gulati Vs. Suraj Prakash Chauhan and others 2015 (45) RCR (civil) 6 in which it is held that a party  cannot be allowed to fill up the lacuna by leading additional evidence including by failing to cross examine the witness of the other side, when the case is at the stage of final arguments without giving any plausible reasons.  Hence, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that a revision petition is without merits and liable to be dismissed.

6.      After hearing both the parties and careful perusal of the impugned order and law cited before us, we are of the considered view that this revision petition is bereft of merits.  It is pertinent to mention here that a revisionist is a complainant in this case and he had already led the evidence  when defence of respondent was struck off by learned District Forum on 05.12.2018. Lateron the said order was set aside by this Commission and respondent was allowed to file written statement. Even thereafter learned District Forum had given one opportunity to the complainant to lead evidence but he failed to do so, rather filed an application for seeking permission to file rejoinder to the written statement which was dismissed by the learned District Forum vide order dated 27.03.2019 and thereafter respondent concluded its evidence on 20.09.2019.  Complainant wants to tender an additional evidence by way of affidavit of Saravjit Singh S/o Pritam Singh and one Pardeep Kumar S/o Sh Sumer Chand.  It  is worthwhile to note that said Saravjit Singh has already tendered his affidavit dated 28.03.2018 supporting the case of revisionist, lateron he has tendered another affidavit dated 05.02.2019  in favour of respondent denying the execution of agreement. Now according to learned counsel for revisionist said Saravjit Singh sworn an affidavit dated 29.07.2019 in which he clarified that he never executed  affidavit dated  05.12.2018 which is forged and fabricated document.  Be that as it may the evidentiary value of both the affidavits will be appraised by the learned District Forum at the time of arguments.  If at all, second affidavit dated 05.02.2019 is forged and fabricated document then revisionist is at liberty to file complaint before the learned District Forum for taking appropriate action if advised so.  However, revisionist cannot be allowed to tender third affidavit of Saravjit Singh and of Pardeep Kumar  in his additional evidence to fill up lacuna in his case particularly when he was given an opportunity to do so after filing of the written statement.

7.      As a sequel to above discussion we do not find any merit to the revisionist and accordingly revision petition is dismissed.

8.      Copy of this order be sent to the District Forum.

 

07th  February, 2020          Manjula,                                Harnam Singh Thakur                                                      Member                                 Judicial Member                            

 

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)