IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION GUJARAT STATE, AHMEDABAD.

Revision Petition NO.01/2023 Court No. 1

1. ICICI Lombard General Ins CO Ltd.

Opp. Motibag Sarvaja, 3^rd Floor, Seven Sees Complex, Shop No. 306-208, Motibag Road, Junagadh. …Petitioner Vs

1. Mrugesh Rameshchandra Vasani &/2, B/1- GopalLalji Haveli, Adarsh Co-Op Society, Vijayraj Nagar, Bhavnagar.

At Present Address:

Jay Ganesh Toyota Show Room, Opp. Shree Ram Estate Taluka Police Station, Bhesan Chokdi, Junagadh. …Respondent Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.P.Patel, President Hon’ble Ms. A.C.Raval, Member Hon’ble Ms. P.R. Shah, Member Apperence: Mr. N.S. Dave for the petitioner Order by Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.P.Patel, President

1. The Petitioner/ Original opponent has filed this revision petition under section 47 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated Nil below an application under exhibit 24 passed by the learned Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission Junagadh in Consumer Complaint no.116/2021.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. N.S. Dave for the petitioner, though the notice was duly served to the respondent, he has not chosen to appear before this commission.

3. Fact of the case: The opponent complainant has filed Consumer Complaint No.116/2021 before the District Commission. The petitioner opponent has filed his written statement. The petitioner has filed affidavit of Mr. Gopal E. Relkar, who is Assistant Director, Bombay Forensic (India’s Forensic Laboratories) on 20.12.2022. The present complaint has filed an application an exhibit 21 dated 10.01.2023 stating that he wants to cross examine the officer of the Bombay Forensic laboratory. The present officer has filed objection at exhibit 25 on 10.01.2023. The opponent complainant has also filed an application exhibit 24. Wherein, it is stated that the cross examination of the witness Mr. Gopal E. Relkar is necessary therefore he may be directed to remain present before the Commission. This application was opposed by the present petitioner but the consumer commission has directed to opponent present petitioner that to present witness before District Commission for cross examination under section 38 (6) and 38 (9) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019. Thus being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with said order the present petitioner has been filed.

4. Argument of the petitioner: Learned Advocate for the petitioner has argued that the order passed by the Learned District Commission is against the provision of Consumer Protection Act therefore, it is required to be quashed and set aside. That the learned District Commission has not considered affidavit as well as report of FSL in proper perspective. That the learned District Commission ought to have issued direction for interrogatory but learned District Commission has failed to appreciate the legal objection as well. He requested to allowing this petition and quashed and set aside the impugned order.

Merit of the case:

5. The petitioner opponent has failed an affidavit of Mr. Gopal E. Relkar, Assistant Director, Bombay Forensic (India’s Forensic Laboratories) at exhibit 21. He has analyse the accident reconstruction documents and given an opinion. He is the witness of the opponent/present petitioner. The complainant has filed an application exhibit 24 stating that he wants to cross examine. The witness Mr. Gopal E. Relkar and requested to District Commission to directed that he may remain present.

6. This Commission read Section-38 (9) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, which is read as follows.

“38. Procedure on admission of complaint.-

(9) For the purposes of this section, the District Commission shall have the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) while trying a suit in respect of the fillowing matters,namely:-

(e) issuing of commissions for the examination of any wi