The court allows reopening evidence in summary consumer proceedings for fairness when key witness testimony is significant.

Per Milind S.Sonawane, Hon’ble Presiding Member.

The respondents are the legal heirs of deceased Neha and have filed Consumer Complaint No.19/2023 before the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jalna ( The District Commission’ for short). In that matter the respondents are the original complainants and the revision petitioners are the original opponents. Both the parties before the Ld. District Commission have filed their evidence and the matter is adjourned for the oral argument of the parties. Meanwhile the revision petitioners filed an application for praying the District Commission that, though their evidence has been closed but they wish to cross examine Dr.A.V.Bhosale the Civil Surgeon, Jalna and on whose report and evidence the respondents have relied .

2. That application obviously has been opposed by the respondents by stating that the application is filed at a belated stage. There are various reports alleging the negligence on the part of revision petitioners. They are trying to protract the matter unnecessarily. On hearing both sides the District Commission dismissed that application on the ground that, the proceeding before it under S.35 of Consumer Protection Act , 2019 ( The C.P.Act for short) are summary in nature. Revision petitioners were well aware of these documents. They did not prefer to cross examine the concern witness and already closed their evidence on 26/12/2023. The matter is now for final hearing. The stage of evidence is already over. There is no substantial ground for reopening the evidence. As such, it rejected that application on that ground.

3. It is true that, once the evidence of the both sides has been closed, it is not permissible to any of the party to reopen the same in the ordinary circumstances. It is equally correct to say that the proceedings before the Consumer Commission are summary in nature. But on perusal of the record it can be seen that, the matter filed before the District Commission pertains to the alleged medical negligence on the part of revision petitioners. The doctor who is sought to be cross examined has given the report which has bearing on the outcome of the proceeding before the District Commission. In such circumstances we are of the view that, so as to do the complete justice with both the parties, permission to cross examine Dr.A.B. Bhosale ought to have been given by the District Commission in the extra ordinary circumstances. As such, the District Commission has ignored this judicial aspect in passing the impugned order and failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in it. Thus, the impugned order will have to be quashed and set aside with a direction that the District Commission shall permit the revision petitioners to move an application to call the concern doctor by issuing witness summons and examine him before the it as per proviso 2 of S.38(6) of the C.P.Act at the cost of the revision petitioners. In the facts and circumstances of the present petition it will be just to direct the revision petitioners to pay to the respondents jointly sum of Rs.15,000/- as the cost of this proceedings and for delayed application to reopen the evidence before the District Commission. Consequently, the stay to the proceeding before the District Commission will have to be vacated. Hence, we pass the following order.

ORDER

1. The revision petition is allowed.

2. The impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside.

3. The District Commission is directed to permit the revision petitioners to move an application to call the concern doctor by issuing witness summons and examine him before the it as per proviso 2 of S.38(6) of the C.P.Act at the cost of the revision petitioners.

4. Revision petitioners are directed to pay to all the respondents jointly sum of Rs.15,000/- as the cost of this proceedings and for delayed application to reopen the evidence before the District Commission.

5. The stay to the proceeding before the District Commission is hereby vacated.

6. Copy of