Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar – Hon’ble Prsiding judicial Member:
(1) This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South Mumbai in Consumer Complaint No.115/2008. In the order sheet dated 30.03.2010 the Forum below mentioned that Complainant had filed application for summoning witness and that application has been withdrawn by him. Thereafter he had requested that interrogatories should be allowed to deliver to one Shashi Chhachiya, the Development Officer and that was allowed. Aggrieved by that order the original Petitioner Insurance Company has filed this petition taking strong exception to the order passed by the District Forum. (2) Facts need not to be stated at all. This is a dispute between the Complainant who had taken insurance cover and Revision Petitioner who had given insurance policy to the Complainant. The Insurance claim was repudiated by the Insurance Company and therefore, Respondent filed Consumer Complaint No.115/2008 and it is pending on the file of South Mumbai District Forum. On 30.03.2010 an application was filed by Complainant summoning witness, but, that application was withdrawn and then prayer was made that he should be permitted to deliver interrogatories to one Mr.Shashi Chhachiya, Development Officer, that was allowed. This is the only ground mentioned in revision by Opposite Party Insurance Company. (3) We heard submission of Advocate Mr.V.S. Talwar, Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr.Patwadhan, Advocate for the Respondent. (4) Interrogators can be served or delivered on the official of the Insurance company who had issued policy and not on somebody else. In the instance case Respondent wanted to serve interrogatories on the official who was simply Development Officer with the Insurance Company, revision petitioner herein. The Counsel for the Revision Petitioner fairly concedes if interrogatories are delivered to the Development Officer who had issued policy in question, he had no objection. In the circumstances, order passed by the Forum below in its order dated 03.03.2010 permitting Respondent/Complainant to serve interrogatories is appearing to be bad in law. The Forum below should have permitted the Respondent to serve interrogatories on the Development Officer, who had issued policy in question. With this observation, we pass the following order: O R D E R (i) The Revision Petition is partly allowed. (ii) The order passed in Order Sheet dated 03.03.2010 in Consumer Complaint No.115/2008 is quashed so far as delivering the interrogatories on Mr.Shashi Chhachia, Development Officer is concerned. We make it clear that Respondent is free to serve interrogatories on Development Officer, who has issued the policy. (iii) Parties are directed to bear their own costs. | 
