Consumer Commissions have the discretionary power to allow the filing of interrogatories to ensure a fair trial and clarify issues, even in cases where general cross-examination is typically restricted to specific categories like medical negligence.

PER HON’BLE SMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN, MEMBER (NON-JUDICIAL)

1. This Revision Petition is filed by the Respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.1 under Section 47(1) (b) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, praying this Commission to set aside the order in IA No.130/2025, dated 01.07.2025 passed by the District Consumer Commission-I, Hyderabad and to pass such other order or orders as this Commission deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, in the interests of justice.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint as the complainant and the opposite parties.

3. The brief facts of the case are as under:-

The complainant decided to take two plots in the venture floated by the opposite parties and paid an amount of Rs.13.58 lakh towards the cost of 02 plots. He claims that the opposite party No.1 executed an Agreement of Sale on 31.05.2012 for 02 plots bearing No. 268 & 269. Till date neither the physical possession is handed over nor is the registration done in favour of the complainant. Hence, the consumer complaint was filed in the Commission below.

4. During the course of proceedings IA 129/2025 & IA 130/2025 were filed by the petitioner/complainant. IA 130/2025 was filed to cross examine Respondent No.1 to elicit the facts about the transaction between the petitioner and the respondents. The IA was resisted by the Respondent No.1 that the burden lies on the petitioner/Complainant to establish his own case and there is no sufficient cause shown for cross examination.

5. The Commission below declined the prayer to cross examine Respondent No.1 but directed the petitioner to submit interrogatories and Respondent No.1 to submit reply affidavit to the interrogatories.

6. This is now being challenged by the Respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.1 by way of the present revision on the following grounds:-

 That the Commission below failed to observe that there is no provision under Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to cross examine the witnesses in general cases and only in medical negligence cases they can cross examine. There is no valid ground to seek for cross examination of the parties, as such the Commission below is permitting to file the interrogatories and reply, which is liable to be dismissed.

 That the Commission below failed to observe that the complainant has marked fabricated documents and the same was resisted by the opposite party. The Commission below ordered to produce the original documents and now the complainant had come with a new version that the originals of the said documents are with the opposite party. This story they allege is fabricated and concocted.

 That the Commission below failed to observe that except the evidence of Respondent No.5, all the other parties have filed their evidence. The complainant has not taken any steps to file the petition for cross examination.

7. Now the point for determination is whether the Revision Petition can be allowed?

8. Heard the arguments of the counsel for the Revision Petitioner and Respondent No.1.

9. Point :- The perusal of the grounds urged reveals that the evidence of Respondent No.1 is filed and the case is coming for the evidence of Respondent No.5.

Theoretically Consumer Commissions discourage filing of interrogatories only at the fag end of the proceedings, but they possess the discretion to allow interrogatories to ensure a fair trial. Since, the application to cross examine is allowed only in cases of medical negligence, t