KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REVISION PETITION No. 17/2023
ORDER DATED: 18.04.2023
(Against the Order in C.C. 166/2016 of CDRC, Palakkad)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI.RANJIT. R : MEMBER
SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
REVISION PETITIONER:
Mathai, S/o Varkey, Pokkal House, Valakkavu Village, Thrissur-680 751.
(By Advs. D.R. Rajesh & Viswanathan K.)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS:
- Saju, S/o Francis, Puthenpurackal House, Koolikadavu, Chittur Taluk, Sholayoor Village, Palakkad-642 125.
- The Proprietor, Krishna Polymers, Industrial Development Plot, Velakodu, Avanoor P.O., Thrissur-680 541.
- The Proprietor, Sree Sabari Polymers, Industrial Development Plot, Velakodu, Mundoor P.O., Thrissur-680 541.
(By Adv. P.P. Thomas for R2 & R3)
ORDER
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
The Revision Petitioner herein is the 3rd opposite party in C.C. No. 166 of 2016 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Palakkad (District Commission for short).
2. I.A. No. 476 of 2022 filed by the revision petitioner for cross examination of the complainant was dismissed by the District Commission. The lawyer of the revision petitioner had omitted to cross examine the complainant and hence the application was filed. The District Commission took a view that the counsel for the Revision Petitioner ought to have been vigilant and cross examined the complainant while he was examined as a witness before the District Commission. According to the District Commission the attempt of the petitioner is to bridge the gaps in evidence and protract the matter.
3. The revision petitioner would challenge the order on the ground that deprivation of an opportunity to cross examine the complainant is illegal as it would work out against the Principles of Natural Justice. Hence he would seek to set aside the order passed by the District Commission.
4. Heard the Counsel for the Revision Petitioner, perused the Memorandum of Revision and the Order passed by the District Commission.
5. On going through the order passed by the District Commission it could be seen that the complainant was examined before the District Commission, but the advocate for the petitioner had not cross examined the complainant. According to the Revision Petitioner he was later impleaded as a party to the proceedings, but it could be seen that that his lawyer had failed to avail the opportunity to cross examine the Complainant when he was examined. The case in question is a very old matter filed in 2016 and by giving chances to drag on the proceedings will not be justified. The order of the District Commission would show that the petitioner had not availed the chance to cross examine the Complainant. There is merit in the stand taken by the District Commission that the attempt of the petitioner is only to bridge the gaps in evidence and to protract the matter.
6. There is no illegality or impropriety on the part of the District Commission in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner. Therefore we find no valid grounds to admit the Revision Petition. So the revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
Sd/-
AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
Sd/-
RANJIT. R : MEMBER
Sd/-
BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
Sd/-
RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
jb
