KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION  PETITION  NO. 44/2010

JUDGMENT DATED: 31.01.2011

PRESENT:-

SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN      : MEMBER

SHRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR           : MEMBER            

APPELLANTS

  1.   The Manager,

        The Hongkong and Shanghai,

        Banking Corporation Ltd.,

        Ravipuram, Ernakulam.

2.    The Manager,

       The Hongkong and Shanghai,

       Banking Corporation  Ltd.,

       Card Product Division,

       Post Box No. 5080, Chennai 600028

                  (Rep. by Adv. Sri. N.M. Madhu & Adv. Smt. R. Suja)

                                                  Vs

RESPONDENT

     Sunny Anthraper,

     Decowood Interiors,

    40/1398,Puthiya Road,

    Palarivattom PO, Cochin 25.

                      (Rep. by Adv. Sri.  George Cherian Karippapparambil)

JUDGMENT

SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN      :     MEMBER

This Revision Petition is preferred against the  order in I.A. 413/10 in C.C. 100/2009 of CDRF, Eranakulam whereby the Forum below dismissed the I.A. which was filed seeking time to produce a C.D as evidence in the case.   

          The revision petitioners had sought for the production of a C.D which according to them would establish their case that there was a contract between the petitioners  and the respondent/complainant regarding the existence of an insurance.  The Forum below denied the right of the opposite parties to establish their case by the dismissal of the aforesaid I.A.     It is noted that the Forum below had dismissed the application on the ground that even if the opposite parties are given an opportunity to produce the C.D. that would not  improve their  case.  The aforesaid finding and the conclusion thereon cannot be upheld.  It is pertinent to note that it is the discretion of the party to a proceeding as to how he should prove his case.  It may be by adducing oral or documentary evidence.  In the present case the Revision Petitioners/Opposite parties opted to produce a CD to substantiate their case.  The procedure adopted by the Forum below to dismiss the aforesaid I.A on the ground that it is  a time consuming process cannot be treated as a sound reasoning   We find that such a presumption is unwarranted and it is also found that no  harm would  be caused to the parties if the C.D. is produced.   It is not fair on the part of the Forum below to shut down the evidence of the parties when they specifically stated that the said piece of evidence would improve their case.

          In the instant case the Forum below can come in to the final conclusion after appreciation of evidence tendered by the parties concerned.    Hence, it is our considered view that the revision petitioners/opposite parties should be given a chance to adduce further evidence (Production of C.D.)   before the Forum and the Forum is at liberty to appreciate the veracity, genuineness and the legal implication of evidence adduced by the petitioners while disposing of the matter finally.

          In the result, the revision  petition is allowed.  The Forum below is directed to permit the revision petitioners/opposite parties to produce the C.D. after reopening the evidence and proceed with the case in accordance with law.

                          VALSALA SARANGADHARAN     :       MEMBER

                    S.  CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR               :         MEMBER