IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION GUJARAT STATE, AHMEDABAD.

Revision Petition NO.70/2022 Court No. 1

1. I.R.M. Enterprise Ins CO Ltd.

755, Prakrutifarm, Mehmdabad road, Hirapur, Taluka: Daskroi, Ahmedabad.

2. Agro D.V.Cadila Sputical Limited Of cadila, 708, Cadila Corporate Campus, Bavla, Sarkhej Road, Bhat- Ahmadabad. …Petitioner Vs Keshubhai Devabhai Karavdra Add: Shreenathji Krupa, Dwarkapuri, Shashikunj road, behind sardar bagh, Junagadh. …Responden t 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.T. Gandhi for the petitioner Order by Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.P.Patel, President

1. The Petitioner has filed this revision petition under section 47 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 21/12/2022 below an application under exhibit 49 passed by the learned Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission Junagadh in Consumer Complaint no.193/2021.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. N.T. Gandhi 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. 193/2021 before the District Commission claiming the relief of 15 lakh damages on account of change of agricultural plant. It is further the case of the petitioner being opponent before the District Commission has filed affidavit in form of chief examination. Thereafter the complainant has produced interrogatory and the present petitioner has filed reply on the interrogatory. Thereafter the complainant advocate has filed an application dated 12.12.2022 stating that he wants to cross examination the opponent. After hearing both the parties the application is allowed by the District Commission and directed the opponent to remain present for cross examination. It is further the case of the complainant that there is provision under section 38 (6) of the consumer protection Act but before the cross examination the party can ask for interrogatory and if it is not satisfied the appointment of court commissioner can be made. He has requested to allowed the present petition and quashed and set aside the order dated 21.12.2022 for cross examination of the opponent.

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 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 filed an affidavit in reply before the District Commission. Thereafter the complainant has produced interrogatory. The present petitioner has given reply of the interrogatory. Thereafter the complainant has filed an application dated 12.12.2022 to cross examine Mr.Johnsan Meheu authorised signatory of the IRN enterprise Pvt.Ltd. Learned District Commission has not considered the objection raised by the present petitioner/opponent, learned District Commission has not considered the section 38(6) and 38 (9) of the Consumer Protection Act.

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 witness, or document;

and”

7. The said order is passed by the Learned Di