Kerala

StateCommission

RP/16/14

M/S GENERAL MOTORS - Complainant(s)

Versus

PAUL PETER - Opp.Party(s)

V SHANKAR

27 Jan 2017

ORDER

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION.14/16

 

ORDER DATED:27.01.2017

PRESENT : 

JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI                         :  PRESIDENT

 

1. M/s General Motors India Pvt. Ltd.,

South Zonal Office,

G.F.4, Karumuttu Centre,                                                 : REVISION PETITIONER

Old # 498, New # 635, Anna Salai,

Nandanam, Chennai-35.                                                  

 

 (By Adv: Sri. M/s V. Shankar)

 

            Vs.

 

   1.      Mr. Paul Peter,

S/o M.C. Peter, Kadayathil House,

Udayamperur P.O, Kerala-682 307.                                          : RESPONDENTS

 

  2.       Geeyem Motors,

Rep. by its General Manager,

Nettoor P.O-682 304.        

 

(By Adv: Sri. Tom Joseph)

ORDER

HON.JUSTICE.P.Q.BARKATHALI : PRESIDENT

 

This is a Revision Petition filed by the first opposite party in CC.583/12 on the file of CDRF, Ernakulam challenging the order of the Forum dated, February 28, 2016 not to consider proof affidavit of the Revision Petitioner as he did not make himself available for cross-examination.

2. The facts in brief are these:-

Complainant who is the 1^st respondent herein filed the complaint before the Forum alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties with reference to a vehicle purchased from the 2^nd opposite party seeking a direction to replace the vehicle or refund the price of the vehicle.

3.      The revision petitioner filed the proof affidavit before the Forum and the case was posted on February 2, 2016 for his cross-examination, but on that day Revision Petitioner did not appear before the Forum and make himself available for cross-examination.  Therefore the Forum proceeded the case as though no proof affidavit is filed by the revision petitioner and posted the case to next day for further proceedings and posted the case to March 9, 2016 for orders.  Revision petitioner has come up in revision challenging the said order of the Forum stating that the Forum should have accepted the proof affidavit and received the evidence by circulating interrogatories to the revision petitioner.

4.      Heard the counsel for the revision petitioner and the 1^st respondent/complainant.  Once the revision petitioner had filed proof affidavit, he is bound to make himself available before the Forum for cross-examination.  If there is any difficulty for the revision petitioner to be physically present before the Forum, he can apply for the issuance of a Commissioner to record his cross-examination, which he did not do.  Therefore I find no merit in the revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed.  The revision petitioner is directed to be present before the Forum and make himself available for cross-examination on the date fixed by the Forum.  Intimate the Forum.

 

 

JUSTICE P.Q. BARKATHALI:  PRESIDENT

 

 

 

VL.