BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD RP.NO.10 OF 2024 AGAINST THE ORDERS IN IASR.NO.291 OF 2024 IN CC.NO.682 OF 2021, DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION-II, HYDERABAD Between:

1. National Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by Authorized Signatory, Mumbai Divisional, Box VI (240600) (Behind Exceisior Theater), Commercial Union House, 9, XVI First Floor, 9, Wallace Street Fort, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400001.

2. National Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by Authorized Signatory, Regd. Office 3 Middleton, Street Kolkata – 700071.

…Rev.Petitioners/Opp.Parties 1 & 2 AND Wing Aviation Private Limited, 1-1-256/B, Plot No.108, Adjacent to Airport Road, Begumpet, Hyderabad – 500016.

Rep. by its Managing Director, Y.Prabhakar Reddy, S/o.Y.Bal Reddy, Aged about 57, 1-1-256/B, Plot No.108, Adjacent to Airport Road, Begumpet, Hyderabad – 500016.

….Respondent/Complainant Counsel for Rev.Petitioners/Ops1 & 2: M/s.Kotha Krishna Reddy Counsel for Respondent/Complainant: M/s.P.Gopal Das QUORAM:

HON’BLE SMT.MEENA RAMANATHAN … IN-CHARGE PRESIDENT &

HON’BLE SRI V.V.SESHUBABU… MEMBER-JUDICIAL THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND TWENTY FOUR ******

Order: (Per Hon’ble Smt.Meena Ramanathan, I/c President)

1. The Revision Petition is filed by the Revision Petitioners/Opposite Parties under Section 47 (1) (B) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, praying this Commission to set aside the orders dated 02.02.2024 made in IA.Sr.291/2024 in CC.No.682/2021 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Hyderabad by allowing IA.Sr.No.291 of 2024 as prayed for i.e., granting leave to file interrogatories and argue the case and pass such other further orders as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.

2. The complaint is filed by the Complainant for compensation for the damage caused to Aircraft CESNA 172 Series No.MSN 172S8450 Reg.No.VT-RGF, Year 2000, in an accident. The Opposite Parties filed IA.No.129/2022 seeking dismissal of the complaint on the grounds that the Complainant is a commercial entity and not a consumer as contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act.

3. IA.No.129/2022 was dismissed on 19.08.2022 and posted for written version of Opposite Parties. Against the orders of dismissal in IA.No.129/2022, the Opposite Parties preferred RP.No.180/2022. The said RP.No.180/2022 was dismissed as not pressed. In the meantime, the Opposite Parties were set exparte on 19.09.2022 as they failed to file their written version. However, the Opposite Parties continued to participate in the proceedings and thereafter filed IASR.No.291/2024 to grant leave to file interrogatories and the same was rejected by the Commission below vide docket order dated 02.02.2024 with the following observation:

“Unless separate orders dated 19.09.2022 is set aside either by the Appellate Commission or any Court, entertaining the present petition in hand is nothing but abuse of procedure as laid down under Section 38(9) of C.P.Act, 2019.”

4. Aggrieved by the above order, the Revision Petitioners have assailed this order on the following grounds:

 The Commission below failed to consider and appreciate the settled law squarely applicable to the case in hand that merely being set exparte, does not extinguish the right of cross examination nor does it extinguish the right to submit arguments. The only thing is that the Opposite Parties are barred from filing written version.

 The Revision Petitioners have further relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court as reported in Nanda Dulal Pradhan & Anr Vs. Dibakar Pradhan & Anr., and in the recent judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2023 Livelaw (SC) 763 in ARN Infrastructure India Ltd., Vs.

Hara Prasad Ghosh, dated 04.09.2023.

5. It is their contention that the right for cross examination by way of filing interrogatories is not just questioning the veracity of the statements of the witnesses but also to point out the discrepancie