THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.
C.C.430/2016
Dated this the 13th day of September, 2018
(Smt. Rose Jose, B.Sc, LLB. : President)
Smt.Beena Joseph, M.A : Member
Sri. Joseph Mathew, M.A., L.L.B. : Member
ORDER
Present: Rose Jose, President:
Complainant absent. Opposite party represented. Case was posted for cross examination of the complainant but he was absent continuously for several consecutive postings for cross examination. In Vidhyadhar Vs. Mankikrao – Adverse Inference – “Party to a suit not entering the witness box, give rise to inference adverse against him.” In this case Hon’ble Supreme Court – AIR(1999) 1441 – Evidence Act Section 114, held “Where a party to the suit does not appear into the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross examined by the other side, “presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct”. The said decision appear to be based on the principle that a person in his capacity as a defendant can raise any legitimate plea available to him under law to defeat the suit of the plaintiff. Cross examination is the legal right of the other side in a suit. This give chance to the other side (defendant) to bring out material facts, if any concealed by the plaintiff in the suit and thereby disprove the allegations raised by the complainant in the box. Here the complainant was not present to be cross examined by the opposite parties and his continuous absence raised an adverse inference against him, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court cited above. Hence we are of the view that this petition is to be dismissed.
In the result, this petition is dismissed. Parties will bear their costs.
Dated this the 13th day of September, 2018
Date of filing: 28/09/2016
SD/-MEMBER SD/-PRESIDENT SD/-MEMBER
(Forwarded/By Order)
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
