Kerala

StateCommission

RP/58/2017

MANAGER, MUTHOOT FINANCE LIMITED - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUNIL BABU - Opp.Party(s)

A ABDUL JALEEL

12 Oct 2017

ORDER

   KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION.58/17 

 

ORDER DATED:12.10.2017

 

PRESENT : 

HON’BLE JUSTICE SHRI. S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN : PRESIDENT

SHRI.V.V.JOSE                                                                     : MEMBER

The Manager,

Muthoot Finance Ltd.,

Angadippuram P.O,

•  

Malappuram District.                                                                     : PETITIONER

 

 (By Adv: Sri. Narayan . R)

 

                        Vs.

Sunil Babu, S/o Bava (Late),

Pilakkal House, Aripra P.O,

Perinthalmanna Taluk,

Malappuram District.                                                                     : RESPONDENT

ORDER

     

HON’BLE JUSTICE SHRI. S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN :  PRESIDENT

Revision is filed by the opposite party in CC.439/16 assailing the Order passed by the District Forum, Malappuram which turned down its request to cross-examine the complainant.

2.      Complainant alleging deficiency of service claimed compensation from the opposite party.  He had pledged a gold ornament with the opposite party, but, it was not returned, was his case to claim compensation.  During pendency of complaint proceedings he paid the amount due to the opposite party and got back the gold ornament, is the case of opposite party.  An application was moved by opposite party to permit him to cross examine the complainant on the above fact, that alone, but it was turned down by the Forum holding that cross-examination is not a right of the parties in consumer cases and there is no scope for cross-examination in the present case.  Aggrieved by that Order, the revision is filed with a petition to condone delay of 43 days.

3.      We heard the counsel for revision petitioner on the merits of delay and also the order challenged in the revision. We are informed that the District Forum has already taken the case for orders after hearing both sides.  No evidence other than documentary is tendered, is the further submission of counsel.  Even assuming that opposite party did not get an opportunity to cross-examine the complainant nothing prevented it from asking for an opportunity to examine its representative as a witness.  That was also not availed, it seems whatever that considering the fact that the case now awaits disposal by the Forum, this stage, we do not find any merit to entertain the revision condoning the delay.  However, we make it clear that whatever challenge canvassed by revision petitioner in the revision can be raised in appeal if any adverse order is passed in the complaint case against the opposite party.  Subject to the reservation made above revision is dismissed as not admitted.

 

JUSTICE S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN : PRESIDENT

 

 

V.V.JOSE  : MEMBER

VL.