KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

REVISION PETITION.13/12

ORDER DATED : 12.03.2012

PRESENT:

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU              :  PRESIDENT

SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA                           : MEMBER

HDFC Ergo General Insurance-

 Company Limited, $E 4^th floor,

KG Oxford Business Centre,                             : REVISION PETITIONER

Sreekandath Road, Ravipuram,

Kochji-682 016, R/by its Manager,

Legal Ambili George.

(By Adv:M/s. P.Balakrishnan, Philip.T.Varghese & Others)

          Vs.

Rajesh Kumar,

Chakkalayil Veedu, Parumala.P.O,

Kadapra Muri, Thiruvalla Taluk,

Pathanamthitta-689 626.

ORDER

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT

The revision petitioner is the opposite party in CC.190/09 in the file of CDRF, Alappuzha.  The order sought to be revised is the one issued in I.A.20/12 filed by the revision petitioner for allowing to cross-examine the complainant.  The Forum relying on the decisions in Mani Square Ltd. Vs. Vinitha Agrawal (1) 2010 CPJ 150 (NC) and the decision in Dr.J.J.Merchant and Ors. Vs. Shrinath Chaturvedi III (2002) CPJ 8 (SC)  held that there is no inevitable circumstances in the case for the opposite party to cross-examine the complainant and disposed of the I.A permitting the opposite party also to file counter affidavit.

2.      It is the contention of the revision petitioner that in case his application is rejected the same will cause him irreparable loss and injury.

3.      We find that the matter in dispute before the Forum with respect to the insurance claim of the car involved in an accident.  It is alleged that the vehicle was being used as rent a car business as against the policy conditions; and that the  complainant should be put to cross-examination.

4.      We find that the CP Act envisages expeditious disposal of the cases filed ie within 90 days and if laboratory examinations etc are required within 150 days.  The procedure envisaged under the statute is a summary one.  The consumer Fora is at liberty to regulate the procedure, Sec.13(4)(III) empowers the Fora to receive evidence on affidavits.  Cross-examination in every matter and cross-examination that is not required for the proper adjudication of the matter is not conceived by the statute.  The supreme Court in Malaykumar Ganguly Vs. Sukumar Mukherji and Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos.1191-1194/05) and in Dr.J.J.Merchant Vs. Shrinath Chaturvedi (supra) and the National Commission in Mani square Ltd’s case (supra) has affirmed some what impliedly the above aspects.  It has been held that in cases where a party wanted to bring out certain facts he can submit interrogatories and reply to the interrogatories on affidavits should be taken on record first instead of permitting lengthy cross-examination.  We find that the same principle applies in the instant case as well.  The CDRF is empowered to examine the matter and decide as to whether cross-examination is required or not.  Of course the order of the Forum is not specific in this regard.  All the same we find that no interference in the order of the Forum is called for specially in view of the fact that it is summary procedure that is envisaged in the Act with the objective of quick and fast disposal of the cases.  Hence revision petition is dismissed with direction that the

Revision Petitioner may file interrogatories for the specific matters sought to be brought out.

In the result the revision petition is dismissed as above.

JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU:  PRESIDENT

M.K. ABDULLA SONA: MEMBER

VL.