KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION No. 29/2022

ORDER DATED: 20.02.2023

(Against the Order in C.C. 15/2016 of CDRC, Kannur)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN     : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A                                              : MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                        : MEMBER

REVISION PETITIONER:

M/s Isnas Aluminium Fabricators, Railway Station Road, Thalassery-670 104 represented by its Managing Partner Sri. T.P. Kamal.

            (By Advs. M. Nizarudheen & V.R. Nasar)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Payyantavida Nasar, S/o Erammoo, Noor Mahal, Gramathi, P.O. Chokli, Kannur-670 672 through brother & Power of Attorney Holder Kamarudheen P.M., ‘Ali’,  P.O., Chokli, Kannur-670 672.

(By Adv. K.K. Rajeev Punnapuram)

2. C.E.O., Alstone House, 2E/7, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi-110 055.

ORDER

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT

This revision is filed by the 1^st opposite party in C.C. No. 15/2016 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kannur (District Commission for short).  The revision petitioner is aggrieved by an order of the District Commission dated 19.03.2022 dismissing I.A. No. 305/2021 filed by him.  I.A. No. 305/2021 was filed by the revision petitioner for permission to cross examine the complainant, PW1.  The said petition has been dismissed by the District Commission.

2.   According to the revision petitioner, the order of the District Commission is wrong and liable to be set aside.  According to the learned counsel, sufficient opportunity was not afforded to the revision petitioner to cross examine the complainant.  It is contended that, the ACP work that is under dispute, its quality and quantity are required to be elicited through cross examination of the complainant.  It is contended that denial of permission to cross examine the complainant is a gross violation of the principles of natural justice. 

3.  Counsel for the complainant on the other hand contends that his complaint was filed in the year 2016.  He had filed his proof affidavit on 10.01.2018.  On 31.10.2019 a petition filed by the complainant for the issue of a direction to the revision petitioner to file interrogatories instead of cross examination had been allowed.  But, no interrogatories were filed, despite grant of several opportunities.  Finally on 30.09.2021 ‘no cross’ was recorded.  The complainant thereafter filed witness schedule and summons was issued for the examination of the expert witness.  Accordingly, the expert was examined as PW2 and Ext. C2 was marked on 24.11.2021.  The revision petitioner did not cross examine the expert.  Thereafter, complainant’s evidence was closed and the case was posted for the evidence of the opposite party/revision petitioner to 28.12.2021.  On 28.12.2021 the revision petitioner filed a petition seeking permission to cross examine the complainant.  The said petition has been dismissed by the order under revision.

4.  According to the counsel for the revision petitioner, the District Commission exceeded its jurisdiction in disallowing permission to the revision petitioner to cross examine the complainant.  The counsel for the complainant responds to the said submission pointing out that, the case was being protracted by the revision petitioner, all along.  The present attempt is to protract the proceedings further.  Therefore, the counsel seeks dismissal of the revision. 

5.  Heard.  The complaint in this case is of the year 2016 and has been pending for the last more than 6 years.  Admittedly proof affidavit in this case was filed by the complainant on 10.01.2018.  Direction to the revision petitioner and 2^nd opposite party to file interrogatories instead of cross examination was issued on 31.10.2019. The said order was not challenged by the revision petitioner, nor has the revision petitioner filed interrogatories as directed.  Therefore, ‘no cross’ was recorded by the District Commission and examination of the expert witness was conducted as PW2.  The revision petitioner did not cross examine PW2.  Therefore, evidence of the complainant was closed on 24.11.2021 and the case was posted for evidence of the opposite parties to 28.12.2021.  It was on 28.12.2021 that the said petition for permitting the revision petitioner to cross examine the complainant was filed.  No petition to re-open the evidence of the complainant was filed.  The District Commission found that the statements in the petition of the revision petitioner were incorrect.  As rightly found by the District Commission, though more than two years’ time had been granted to the revision petitioner to file interrogatories, he did not want to cross examine the complainant at that time.  The District Commission has therefore rightly concluded that the attempt of the revision petitioner was without any bonafides and intended only to protract the proceedings. 

6.  Having considered the contentions of the parties and perused the records in this case, we are not satisfied that there is any error of jurisdiction or infirmity in order of the District Commission warranting an interference therewith in revision. 

For the above reasons, this revision is dismissed. 

JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN  : PRESIDENT

                                                  BEENA KUMARY. A         : MEMBER

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER

jb