This is a discussion on Bombay Port Trust within the Judgments forums, part of the General Discussions category; CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI REVISION PETITION NO. 130 OF 2008 Date of filing : 14/11/2008 IN CONSUMER ...
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI
REVISION PETITION NO. 130 OF 2008 Date of filing : 14/11/2008
IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 139 OF 2005 Date of order : 02/03/2009
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : SOUTH MUMBAI
Krishna Laxman Nangare
R/at Room No.893, Building No.19A,
Fisherman Colony, Mahim,
Mumbai – 400 016. … Petitioner/org. complainant
1. Bombay Port Trust
Thru its Chairman,
O/at Port Bhavan, Ballard Estate,
Mumbai – 400 001.
2. Chief Medical Officer
Port Trust Hospital,
Mumbai Port Trust, Wadala (E),
Mumbai – 400 037. … Respondents/org. O.Ps.
Corum : Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
Smt. S.P. Lale, Hon’ble Member
Present: Mr.Nitesh Bhutekar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.V.K. Parab, Advocate for the respondents.
- : ORDER :-
Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
Being aggrieved by the order passed by South Mumbai District Consumer Forum dated 23/10/2008 in pending complaint No.139/2005 whereby application of the complainant seeking permission to cross-examination of experts has been rejected, complainant himself filed this Revision Petition challenging the said order.
The facts to the extent material may be stated as under :-
In the pending complaint, which is filed against Bombay Port Trust and another, the complainant moved an application seeking cross-examination of the experts. In the said application, complainant stated that Dean of J.J. Hospital forwarded a report on 11/09/2007. Report was called at the instance of complainant, who moved Misc. Appl.No.46/2007. After calling report from the experts, the complainant wanted to cross-examine three experts, who gave medical opinion, which has gone against the complainant. Hence, the complainant moved this application seeking cross-examination of those experts. O.Ps. filed their say and resisted the application. According to the O.Ps., the application is not tenable and it is misconceived. O.Ps. pleaded that at the instance of complainant, Dean of J.J. Hospital obliged the Forum in giving report on the basis of record provided to them. The complainant therefore was estopped from making such application for cross-examination. According to O.Ps., complainant ought to have filed objections with regard to expert report as to why report is incorrect or should not be relied. Instead of doing so, he sought cross-examination of the experts. O.Ps. therefore pleaded that application should be dismissed.
After having heard both the sides, the Forum below held that only witnesses can be examined and experts, who gave opinion at the instance of complainant to the Forum, had no occasion to see, examine and treat the complainant and therefore, they cannot be treated as witnesses. So, three experts cannot be subjected to cross-examination by the complainant. There is no provision in law to cross examine such persons, who are other than witnesses. The Forum below rightly held that if O.Ps. had given expert evidence by tendering expert’s affidavit, such witnesses can be cross-examined by the complainant, but not otherwise. So, the Forum below dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the said order, this Revision Petition has been filed.
We heard Mr.Nitesh Bhutekar, Advocate for the petitioner/org. complainant and Mr.V.K. Parab, Advocate for the respondents/org. O.Ps.
We are finding that the Revision Petition is misconceived and bad in law. The Forum below rightly rejected the application. Because experts had given opinion at the instance of Forum and Forum was moved to seek expert opinion by the complainant. Now, if the complainant is finding that expert opinion is going against his own case, then the Forum cannot be blamed for rejecting the application to cross-examine those experts. These experts gave independent opinion as sought by the Forum below. They are not witnesses of either of the parties to the proceeding and therefore, there is no question of cross-examination. The application itself was misconceived one and therefore, it was rightly dismissed by the Forum below. In our view, the said order is sustainable in law. Hence, the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1. Revision Petition stands dismissed.
2. No order as to costs.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
(S. P. Lale) (P.N. Kashalkar)
Member Presiding Judicial Member