Chandigarh

StateCommission

TA/2/2011

Kuldeep Stadly - Complainant(s)

Versus

The German Laser - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Surya Kant, Adv. proxy for Sh.S.D.Bansal, Adv. for applicant

04 Aug 2011

ORDER


The State Consumer Disputes Redressal CommissionUnion Territory,Chandigarh ,Plot No 5-B, Sector No 19B,Madhya Marg, Chandigarh-160 019
TRANSFER APPLICATION NO. 2 of 2011
1. Kuldeep Stadly ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. The German Laser ...........Respondent(s)


For the Appellant :Sh.Surya Kant, Adv. proxy for Sh.S.D.Bansal, Adv. for applicant, Advocate for
For the Respondent :Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Adv. for non applicant/complainant, Advocate

Dated : 04 Aug 2011
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.

 

Per Justice Sham Sunder , President
 
               Sh.Pradeep Khurana, applicant/OP No.2 has moved this application for transfer of Consumer Complaint No.1485 of 2009 titled as Kuldeep Studley Vs The German Laser Centre & Others, from District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II to District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh, on the ground, that the complaint was fixed for cross-examination of the complainant and before, she gave answers to the questions, put to her, during such cross-examination, the President of the District Forum, recorded the same in the manner, he desired. It was stated that when the Counsel for the applicant/OP requested the President of the District Forum not to do so, he did not stop. It was further stated that the applicant/OP entertained an apprehension that the President of District Forum-II was helping the complainant. It was further stated that the applicant/OP did not expect any justice from District Forum-II.
2.         In reply to the application, it was stated that the applicant/OP brought a doctor with him for assistance in the cross-examination, who was not a party to the case. The non-applicant/complainant objected to the same, but the District Forum allowed her presence.  It was further stated that the answers, which were given by the complainant, were duly dictated by the District Forum to the Stenographer. It was further stated that the President of the District Forum disallowed some irrelevant, useless and vulgar questions of the applicant/OP. The remaining allegations were denied, being wrong.
3.          We heard the Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record, which was requisitioned and received.
4.           It is evident, from the record, that Kuldip Studley, complainant/non-applicant submitted her affidavit by way of examination-in-chief. An application was moved by the Counsel for OP No.3, for cross-examination of this witness, which was allowed. No doubt, no application for cross-examination was moved by OP Nos.1,2 & 4, for cross-examination, yet, in our opinion, they had a right to cross-examine  the witness, when she entered in the witness box, for such cross-examination, though, on the request of one or the other opposite party. The perusal of record further shows that the cross-examination of Kuldeep Studely complainant   was  partly conducted  on 31.3.2011 by Sh.S.D.Bansal, Advocate, for OP Nos.1,2 & 4 which runs into one page. Further cross-examination was deferred, on the request of the Counsel for the OPs, as he wanted to conduct the same, after seeing the photographs. On 18.4.2011, the Counsel for OP No.3, cross-examined the complainant, in detail. Thereafter, the Counsel for OP Nos.1,2 & 4 also further cross-examined her. The cross-examination was completed. It was the duty of the President of the District Forum, to ensure that the proceedings are conducted in a proper manner and he discharged his duties.  In case, the Counsel for the applicant/OP had any objection, he could stop cross-examining the witness further, and exhibit his intention, that he wanted to file a transfer application, but he did not do so. After completing the cross-examination of the witness, it did not lie in the mouth of the applicant/OP, that the wrong answers, were dictated to the Stenographer, by the President of the District Forum. The complaint is now fixed for arguments. There is nothing, on record, that the conduct of the President of the District Forum was such, as caused a reasonable apprehension, in the mind of the applicant/OP No.2 that no justice would be done to her. The allegations, in the application are vague. The apprehension of the applicant/OP, is not grounded on any sound footing. No ground, therefore, is made out, for allowing the application, and the same deserves to be dismissed.
5.         For the reasons recorded above, the application being devoid of merit, must fail and the same is dismissed.
6.         Any observation made, in this order, shall not affect the merits of the complaint case.

HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBERHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENTHON'BLE MR. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER