Back
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
P.S. Rana, Sunita Sharma, R.K. Verma, JJ.
SANJAY JASWAL — Appellant
Vs.
S.K. NANDA — Respondent
Revision Petition No. 80 of 2018
Decided On : 10-01-2020
Consumer Complaint - Consumer Protection Act - [Consumer Protection Act 1986, Section 12, Section 13, Section 14, Section 15, Section 17, Section 19] - The court discussed the essentiality of oral cross-examination and the principles of natural justice under the Consumer Protection Act. It highlighted the contradictory reports of the Hydrologists and the expedience of sending written interrogatories in lieu of oral cross-examination to ensure substantial justice. The court emphasized the legal right of a party to cross-examine and the time-bound nature of proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act.
Fact of the Case:
The consumer complaint was filed by Dr. S.K. Nanda against the opposite party for deficient service in the construction of a tube well. The opposite party claimed completion of the work and filed a civil suit against the complainant. During the proceedings, the opposite party filed an application for cross-examination, which was dismissed by the learned DCF/DCC. The revision petition was filed against this interim order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the oral cross-examination of the hydrologists and the complainant was essential due to contradictory reports. It held that sending written interrogatories in lieu of oral cross-examination was expedient in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice. The court emphasized the legal right of a party to cross-examine and the time-bound nature of proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act.
Issues: The determination of whether the revision petition should be accepted and whether written interrogatories should be sent in lieu of oral cross-examination under the Consumer Protection Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court decided that written interrogatories should be sent in lieu of oral cross-examination to ensure substantial justice and expedience in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice. It emphasized the legal right of a party to cross-examine and the time-bound nature of proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act.
Final Decision: The revision petition was partly allowed, and it was ordered that written interrogatories should be filed before the learned DCF/DCC for cross-examination. The court directed the learned DCF/DCC to send written interrogatories to the concerned parties and emphasized the time-bound nature of proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act.
ORDER :
1. Present revision petition is filed against interim order 09.04.2018 passed by learned DCF/DCC in consumer complaint No.101/2013 titled S.K. Nanda v. Sanjay Jaswal wherein learned DCF/DCC dismissed application filed by revisionist for oral cross examination of (1) Sh. K.S. Mandhotra Senior Hydrologist (2) Sh. D.S. Saini Superintending Hydrologist & (3) Complainant Dr. S.K. Nanda.
Brief facts of consumer complaint:
2. Dr. S.K. Nanda filed consumer complaint under Consumer Protection Act pleaded therein that complainant is professional doctor and is running hospital with name and style Nanda Hospital and Diagnostic Centre Hamirpur Road Una District Una (H.P). It is pleaded that complainant has agricultural land in village Jankaur Tehsil and District Una (H.P). It is pleaded that opposite party approached complainant to hand over water tube well work to opposite party and assured the complainant that opposite party would work to the satisfaction of complainant. It is further pleaded that agreement dated 10.12.2012 was executed inter se parties. It is pleaded that complainant paid consideration amount of Rs. 51000/-(Fifty one thousand) to the opposite party in advance and thereafter opposite party started the water tube well work at site and after few days opposite party requested complainant to supply pipe of 6 feet for lowering the same in the tube well bore. It is pleaded that complainant provided requisite pipe to opposite party and also provided other raw material demanded from time to time. It is pleaded that despite legal notice opposite party did not perform its part.
3. Complainant sought relief to the effect that opposite party be directed to log the tube well bore and to provide mineral water and also to pay Rs. 1000000/-(Ten lac). In addition complainant also sought litigation costs to the tune of Rs. 5500/- (Five thousand five hundred). In addition complainant sought additional compensation to the tune of Rs. 20000/-(Twenty thousand) on account of pain and agony suffered by complainant due to deficient service of opposite party. Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought.
4. Per contra opposite party filed version pleaded therein that opposite party has filed civil suit before Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Court No.1 Una titled Sanjay Kumar v. S.K. Nanda which is pending for adjudication. It is pleaded that complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and complainant is estopped to file present consumer complaint by his own act and conduct. It is further pleaded that complainant did not pay settled rate amount deliberately and intentionally to harass the opposite party. It is pleaded that opposite party has completed whole of the work in the month of March 2013 and 112 meter bore of 12 inches has been drilled in the ground. It is pleaded that opposite party after completion of work has given detailed bill on dated 07.03.2013, 20.03.2013 and 24.03.2013 for a consideration amount of Rs. 400464/-(Four lac four hundred sixty four) after deduction of Rs. 51000/-(Fifty one thousand) advance as per terms and conditions of agreement. It is further pleaded that opposite party also served legal notice to complainant to pay an amount of Rs. 400464/-(Four lac four hundred sixty four) on dated 22.08.2013. It is pleaded that complainant in order to avoid payment filed the present consumer complaint. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought.
5. Complainant filed rejoinder and reasserted allegations mentioned in the consumer complaint. During pendency of consumer complaint opposite party filed application for cross examination of (1) Shri K.S. Mandhotra Senior Hydrologist Ground Water Organization Irrigation & Public Health Department Una (2) Sh. D.S. Saini Superintending Hydrologist (Director Retired) Central Grounds Water Board Ministry of Water Resources Government of India SCF-40 1st Floor Industrial Area Phase-7 Mohali & (3) Dr. S.K. Nanda. Complainant resisted the application. Learned DCF/DCC dismissed
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
