West Bengal

StateCommission

RC/08/87

Skylight Automatic Colour Lab. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Kashinath Bhattacharyya. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Debaprasad Biswas.

04 Dec 2008

ORDER


STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION , WEST BENGAL
BHAWANI BHAWAN (Gr. Floor), 31 Belvedere Road. Kolkata -700027
REVISION PETITION No. RC/08/87 of 2008

Skylight Automatic Colour Lab.
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Sri Kashinath Bhattacharyya.
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. JUSTICE ALOKE CHAKRABARTI 2. MR. A K RAY 3. SMT. SILPI MAJUMDER

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


For the Appellant :


For the Respondent :




ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

No. 1/04.12.2008.

 

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT.

 

This is a revisional application challenging the refusal of prayer of the Revision Petitioner before the Forum below for cross-examination of the Complainant – O.P.  Upon hearing the Ld. Advocate it appears the Revisionist felt aggrieved because of such refusal to cross-examine the Complainant on dock.  The contention is that the subject matter of the proceeding before the Forum below being technical as regards photography, cross-examination on dock is essential and without the same the Revisionist will suffer prejudice.  On consideration of the facts as we do not find that the Complainant either has claimed or has been shown as an expert in the subject, we do not find any reason for permitting the cross-examination of the Complainant on the dock particularly by reason of the law stated in the case reported in (2002) 6 Supreme Court Cases 635 – Dr. J. J. Merchant – vs. – Shrinath Chaturvedi.  In above view of the finding and in view of the fact that hearing of the matter has been delayed for a long time, we do not interfere with proceeding in the present revisional application and the same is hereby dismissed ex parte without cost.  We make it clear that we have not decided any of the contention on merit in this proceeding.

 




......................JUSTICE ALOKE CHAKRABARTI
......................MR. A K RAY
......................SMT. SILPI MAJUMDER