Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum. 

          Point involved in this Revision Petition is very limited.  Respondent/complainant moved an application before the District Forum seeking directions to cross-examine Shri K.Jayavelu who had filed the affidavit in evidence on behalf of the petitioner.

          District Forum partly allowed the said application on 14.11.2006 by granting liberty to the respondent to cross-examine the deponent of petitioner’s affidavit by putting interrogatories to him in writing.  The interrogatories were further directed to be limited to details referred to details given in Para 3(2) of the said application.

Being aggrieved, respondent filed revision petition before the State Commission, which has been allowed by the impugned order. District Forum has been directed to call Shri K.Jayavelu for cross-examination.  It has been made clear that if during cross-examination the District Forum finds that certain questions put are unnecessary, then the District Forum can limit the cross-examination.   Parties were directed to appear before the District Forum on 7.3.2007.

Petitioner/opposite party, being aggrieved, has filed the present Revision Petition.  Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the fora under the Consumer Protection Act have to decide the cases in a summary manner.  The District Forum did not have the jurisdiction to cross-examine the petitioner either by way of interrogatories or summoning.  We do not find any substance in this submission.  Code of Civil Procedure/Evidence Act is not applicable to the disputes under the Consumer Protection Act.  The consumer fora have been put at liberty to evolve their own procedure in order to do substantial justice.  In a particular case, if the District Forum, as an exception, wants to cross-examine a deponent, then it has the authority to do so.  The contention raised by the petitioner that a deponent cannot be put to cross-examination either in person or through interrogatories, cannot be accepted.

Counsel for the petitioner then contends that the State Commission has erred in varying the order of the District Forum inasmuch as it has directed the District Forum to summon the petitioner to appear in person for cross-examination.  We find substance in this submission.  Initially the District Forum shall examine the petitioner through interrogatories and, in case, the District Forum comes to the conclusion that further cross-examination is required, then the District Forum would be at liberty to summon the petitioner to appear in person for further cross-examination.  The order of the State Commission is set aside and that of the District Forum is restored.

Parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the District Forum on 25.7.2011.

Since it is an old matter, we direct the District Forum to dispose of the complaint within 6 months from the date of first appearance of the parties.