BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT PUDUCHERRY
Thursday, the 26th day of April 2018
Revision Petition No.1/2018
M.P.No.196/2017 in C.C.No.13/2017
SAMICANNOU Gilbert Aroquiassamy
… Petitioner/Complainant
Vs.
1. The Chief Commercial Manager (Refund)
Senior Divisional Commercial Manager (Refund)
TPJ Division – Southern Railway, Trichy
2. The Head of Railway Station
Puducherry Railway Station
Puducherry.
…. Respondents / Opposite Parties
(On revision against the order passed by the District Forum, Puducherry in M.P. No. 196/2017 in Consumer Complaint No.13/2017 dated 21.03.2018)
M.P.No.196/2017 in C.C.No.13/2017
SAMICANNOU Gilbert Aroquiassamy
…. Petitioner / Complainant
Vs.
1. The Chief Commercial Manager (Refund)
Senior Divisional Commercial Manager (Refund)
TPJ Division – Southern Railway, Trichy
2. The Head of Railway Station
Puducherry Railway Station
Puducherry.
…. Respondents / Opposite Parties
BEFORE:
HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE K. VENKATARAMAN,
PRESIDENT
THIRU S. TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE
MEMBER
FOR THE REVISION-PETITIONER:
Petitioner / Party in person.
FOR THE RESPONDENTS:
Thiru.V.M.P. Mourougayane, Advocate, Puducherry.
O R D E R
(By HON’BLE JUSTICE PRESIDENT)
This revision is directed against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pondicherry made in M.P. No. 196/2018 in C.C. No. 13/2017 dated 21.03.2018.
2. The complainant thereon is the petitioner and the opposite parties are respondents.
3. The parties are referred in the same position as they have been referred before the District Forum, Puducherry for the sake of convenience.
4. The complainant has filed M.P. 196 / 2017 before the District Forum alleging that in the chief examination of CW1, the correct Railway Station has been mistakenly typed as Madura Junction Railway Station instead of Agra Contonment Railway Station. Further, according to the complainant, there is an error in the cross examination of CW1. It is stated there that "I deny the suggestion that I looked for the TTE for complaint, but he has not availed" instead of "I deny the suggestion that I did not look for the TTE for complaint but he was not available".
5. It is the case of the complainant that these mistakes have to be rectified or otherwise, he will be put to serious hardship.
6. On behalf of the opposite parties, the application was vehemently contended and stated that the application is not maintainable in law or on facts and seeking correction in the chief examination as well as cross examination cannot be permitted. The District Forum on hearing both sides and perusing the plea that has been taken by the complainant as well as the respondents, dismissed the Miscellaneous Petition and the present revision petition is filed against the said order.
7. It is the case of the petitioner that some mistake has crept in in the chief examination as well as in the cross examination. Once the District Forum has recorded the evidence in chief as well as the cross examination of the complainant / CW1, it cannot be rectified for any reason by the District Forum. The complainant / CW1 has signed in the deposition and it is presumed that he has gone through the evidence and signed thereof. It is also to be noted that the complainant has not raised this issue immediately after signing the deposition. The complainant seems to have filed the application only after the next hearing date, according to him. The rectification sought by the petitioner in the chief examination as well as in the cross examination cannot be permitted at all. The petitioner alleges that though he has preferred an affidavit in a proper way and he has scored of and he has presented the same at the instance of the District Forun, but the complainant in his ground of revision has not stated that at the instance of the District Forum, such averments have been made in the application in support of the petition. Therefore, we are unable to accept the plea taken by the complainant in the course of argument. Further, the petitioner cannot seek for correction in the chief examination or cross-examination which has already been recorded by the District Forum.
8. The Party in person, the petitioner has relied on a decision made in Civil Appeal Nos. 2795 – 2796 of 2011 [ K.K. VELUSAMY vs N. PALANISAMY]. Therein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly stated that in such circumstances, the parties can avail the provision of Order 18 Rule 17 to recall the witness. Therefore, the said judgment will not come to the rescue of the complainant. In the present case, the Revision Petitioner has not filed any application under Order 18 Rule 17.
9. For all the reasons set out, we are of the view that the Revision Petitioner cannot ask for rectification of the chief examination which has already been recorded and also the cross examination which has already been recorded.
10. In fine, the Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Dated this the 26th day of April, 2018.
(Justice K. VENKATARAMAN)
PRESIDENT
(S. TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE)
MEMBER
