ORAL ORDER
Per – Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. C. Chavan, President
We have heard at length Prof. Gopinath N. Shenoy, authorized representative on behalf of the Petitioners and Adv. M. Ilteja Siddiqui on behalf of the Respondent and with their help we have carefully perused the material placed on record.
[2] We have taken up this revision for immediate disposal at the stage of admission itself because consumer complaint is pending before the District Forum for about seven years now. Present revision petition is filed by the original Opponents against an order dated 01/04/2014 passed by Additional Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Consumer Complaint No.290 of 2007 on an application filed by the Petitioners/Opponents, which contained following three prayers:-
“That OPs be permitted to cross examine the experts through a Commissioner at OPs’ costs.
Or in the alternative
Permit further interrogatories to the experts.
Or in the alternative
Permit OPs to file counter affidavit.”
[3] Learned authorized representative for the Petitioners submitted that the Petitioners should be allowed to cross-examine the experts who have answered the interrogatories and the prayers of the Petitioners may be considered in the order they were made in the application. He submits that in the circumstances of the case, cross-examination may be allowed. However, we find that there is no question of a party having any right of cross-examination though the District Forum may allow cross-examination of expert whose evidence has been tendered. In this case, we do not see there is any need to allow cross-examination of expert. Authorized representative for the Petitioners wants to address us on desirability of the Petitioners to cross-examine the experts. However, we refuse to concede to his prayer because an alternative prayer of the Petitioners is granted and it is not that the Petitioners had only sought cross-examination of the experts as the application filed by the Petitioners before the District Forum itself shows that they would have been satisfied if the second or the third alternative prayers had been granted. We find that though the experts have answered the interrogatories and they have signed every page of the interrogatories answered by them, the experts have not affirmed the contents thereof. Without affirmation, these interrogatories have no evidentiary value. Learned counsel for the Respondent/Complainant submitted that not more than seven days would be required for getting the expert Doctors to affirm these interrogatories. However, this may not be practicable. Therefore, in order to ensure that the Respondent/Complainant does not suffer because of technical lapse, we would permit the Complainant to file affirmed reply to the interrogatories by the doctors concerned within a period of three months. However, it is hereby made clear that in case there is a failure on the part of the Respondent/Complainant to get the interrogatories affirmed then, in such a case, the District Forum may consider the third alternative prayer of the Petitioners viz. to the permit the Petitioners/Opponents to file a counter-affidavit. With these directions, revision petition stands disposed of. Parties shall bear their own costs.
Pronounced and dictated on 23rd December, 2014
