Statements made on oath in court prevail over statements recorded in an FIR, as an FIR is not considered substantive evidence and is not subject to cross-examination.

1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No

2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No

3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No

JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT:-

The Appellant/Complainant has filed the present Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short the ‘Act’) being aggrieved by the order dated 24.01.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hoshiarpur (in short the “District Commission”) in Consumer Complaint No.190 of 2020, whereby the Complaint filed by the Complainant had been dismissed.

There was delay of 122 days in filing of the Appeal. M.A. No.1386 of 2023 was filed for condonation of delay which was supported by an Affidavit. The delay of 122 days was condoned vide order dated 10.07.2024 subject to cost of Rs.5000/-. The cost amount was deposited on 30.07.2024. M.A. was disposed off accordingly.

M.A. No. 1149 of 2023 (for Additional Evidence)

This Application has been filed by Applicant/Complainant for placing on record some documents as additional evidence, i.e. the testimony of Sh. Shiv Kumar dated 31.10.2022 recorded in FIR No.58 dated 13.05.2018, registered at Police Station Una, District Una and the written statement and the testimony of Manpreet Singh recorded before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Una, District Una and the medical record of the injured persons as Annexure A-1 to A-4. Ld. Counsel for the Applicant has submitted that the aforesaid documents are most material documents for deciding the controversy involved in the present case. Learned Counsel has further submitted that these documents could not be produced before the District Commission despite exercise of due diligence.

Reply to the said Application was filed by the Respondent/OP. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has submitted that since Manpreet Singh was found to be under intoxication and was challaned by police, the Applicant seeks to change the name of the driver as Vijay Kumar, to get undue claim. Learned Counsel has further submitted that impugned order is based on evidence led by the parties and legally sustainable.

We have heard the oral arguments raised by the learned Counsel for both the parties and have also gone through the contents of the Application as well as reply thereto. We find merit in the contentions of the Counsel for the Applicant, accordingly the Application is allowed and the documents, i.e. Annexure A-1 to A-4 are taken on record as Annexure A-1 to A-4, as the same are vital documents to decide the case in hand

Briefly, the facts of the case of the Complainant which are necessary for disposal of the present Appeal are that the Complainant being aggrieved by the action of the OPs had filed the Complaint before the District Commission with the following prayer :-

“It is therefore prayed that the opposite parties may be directed to pay the amount of Rs.4,50,000/- including loss of damages of car and mental harassment and litigation expenses and inconvenience caused to the complainant on account of the deficiency in service and unfair trade practices adopted by the opposite parties. The complainant may be granted any other relief to which she is found entitled on the facts and circumstances of the case.”

Upon issuing notices in the said Complaint to the OPs, they had appeared through Counsel and contested the Complaint by filing reply/written versions. Certain preliminary objections were raised and other averments made in the Complaint were controverted.

By considering the averments made in the Complaint and reply thereof as well as the oral arguments raised by the Counsel for the parties and the documents available on record, the District Commission had dismissed the Complaint. The relevant part of the order as mentioned in para 14 of the order dated 24.01.202