D T D C COURIER AND CARGO LTD vs Mahabir Prasad

THE revision petition is directed against interlocutory order dated 14/5/2007, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ranchi, in Consumer Complaint No. 54 of 2006, whereby prayer made on behalf of the opposite party-petitioners to cross-examine the complainant''s witness has been rejected.

THE complaint relates to the alleged failure on the part of the Courier Company to deliver the consignment in good condition. After completion of pleadings, both parties have already filed evidence on affidvit. On 13/12/2006 complainant expressed desire to cross-eamine oppposite party''s witness Vishal Pandit, which was allowed by order dated 17/1/2007. Instead of producing Vishal Pandit for eamination on 5/2/2007, the opposite party filed a petition for cross-examination of all the complainant''s witnesses and thereafter to produce Vishal Pandit. By order dated 14/5/2007, the District Forum rejected the said petition dated 5/2/2007 and the opposite party was directed to produce Vishal Pandit for cross-examination as per previous order dated 17/1/2007. We have heard both parties at length. The petitioners have filed a supplementary affidavit stating therein that instead of all the complainant''s witnesses prayer for cross-examination is now confined to only one witness Vivek Nayan, son of the complainant, who had not complained of any damage to the articles at the time of delivery.

So far as cross-examination of a witness is concerned, we wish to clarify the position that before Consumer Fora, as provided under the Consumer Protection Act, evidence is required to be filed by the parties on affidavit. In case a party wants to cross-examine one or other witness of the other parties, whose evidence on affidavit has been filed, the said party is required to file a petition before the Fora indicating the reason for which cross-examination of the witness is required to be made. The Fora has to consider such reasoning for cross-examination and come to conclusion whether the said party can be permitted to cross-examine and only then cross-examination is permissible.

IN our view, the District Forum has not committed any illegality or material irregularity in passing the impugned order whereby a bald prayer for cross-examination of a witness or all the witnesses of the other side were required to be cross-examined at this stage of the complaint. We are not concerned with the earlier order dated 17/1/2007 whereby prayer made by the complainant to examine Vishal Pandit, a witness whose evidence on affidavit was filed on behalf of the opposite party, was allowed, because the said order was not challenged before us and has become final by now. So far as the petitioner''s second thought to cross-examine only one witness namely Vivek Nayan, whose evidence on affidavit has been filed on behalf of the complainant is concerned, the petitioner is at liberty to make fresh prayer giving cogent reasons/points for his cross-examination before the District Forum, after its witness Vishal Pandit is duly cross-examined by the complainant as per order dated 17/1/2007. In the result this revision petition is disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions. R. P. disposed of.