ASHOK SHROFF Vs. SURMUKH SINGH MAHAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Adv. Uday Wavikar on behalf of the Revision Petitioners and Mr. Surjit Singh Mahajan, the Respondent No.1 appearing for himself and on behalf of the other Respondents. Order dated 22.10.2010, passed by the South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum below an application dated 14.4.2010 filed by Mr. Surjit Singh Mahajan to bring on the record the names of widow and other sons of the deceased original Complainant, namely Mr. Sarmukh Singh Mahajan on record in Consumer Complaint No.205 of 2005 has been challenged by the Revision Petitioners. By this impugned order legal heirs of the deceased original Complainant are directed to be taken on the record. However, the original Opponents/the Revision Petitioners herein has challenged this order on the ground that all the legal heirs of the deceased original Complainant are/have not been brought on the record by the heirs of the deceased original Complainant and only male legal heirs have been brought on the record.

(2.) THE original Complainant, namely Mr. Sarmukh Singh Mahajan had filed this original Consumer Complaint No.205 of 2005 alleging deficiencies in the medical services rendered by the original Opponents/Revision Petitioners. In the said consumer complaint after filing of the written version, it appears that the parties have filed their respective evidence by way of affidavits. After filing of the evidence by way of affidavits, the original deceased Complainant claimed cross - examination of the original Opponents/ Revision Petitioners, who are the medical practitioners. Halfway cross -examination has been completed. There appears to be a checkered history in respect of this cross -examination. Initially, Adv. Mrs. Peerbhoy was appointed as a Court Commissioner by the District Forum for the purposes of recording cross -examination. However, she withdrawn herself from recording further evidence for her own difficulties. Thereafter, name of Mr. Purandare, a retired judge, was suggested by the original Opponents/ Revision Petitioners for the purposes of recording cross -examination but instead of Mr. Purandare, Dr. Mahesh Baldeva was appointed as a Court Commissioner to record evidence. Meanwhile, it appears that Dr. Mahesh Baldevas appointment was challenged by the original Opponents/Revision Petitioners and the order as regards his appointment was set aside. Thereafter, another Court Commissioner was not appointed in the said case. Meanwhile the original Complainant has/had expired during these proceedings and, therefore, question of taking the legal heirs of the deceased original Complainant on the record has arisen. We do not want to go into controversy of legal heirs because the controversy is now settled between the Revision Petitioners and the Respondents. Both the parties have filed a pursis stating that the deceased original Complainant, namely Mr. Sunnukh Singh Mahajan had left heirs viz., his wife, Smt. Shakuntala Mahajan and four sons, namely Mr. Surjit Singh Mahajan, Mr. Jagmohan Singh Mahajan, Mr. Paravinder Singh Mahajan and Mr. Ravinder Singh Mahajan and one daughter, namely Dr. Manjit Kaur Chowdhary and accordingly, both the parties have conveyed their no objection to bring all of them on the record. Now, it is an admitted position that the four sons and their mother have been already taken on the record as the legal heirs of the deceased original Complainant. However, Dr. Manjit Kaur Chowdhary, daughter of the deceased original Complainant, was/is not on record and it is necessary to take her name on the record as the legal heir of the deceased original Complainant. Both the parties concede to this position. Legal heirs which are already brought on the record are ready to take the name of Dr. Manjit Kaur Chowdhary on record as one of the legal heirs of the deceased original Complainant and, therefore, this revision petition is allowed to that extent.

(3.) WHAT we find that this is a case of the year 2005 and this case is pending since then for disposal. Only because of the fact that the cross -examination is yet to be completed, the proceeding cannot be completed. Law requires that as far as possible, the proceeding should be completed within a period of ninety days and an attempt shall be made by the Consumer Fora to dispose of the matter within the stipulated period of ninety days. If, in case, the case is not disposed within the stipulated period of ninety days it is expected on the part of the Consumer Fora to assign a reason as to why the case could not be completed within a period of ninety, days as desired by the legislature. In the result, Consumer Fora are accountable by these provisions for the delayed disposal of the case. What we find that on the simple issue of bringing the legal heirs of deceased original Complainant on the record and appointment of a Court Commissioner, repeatedly the case has appeared before the State Commission, which has resulted into non -disposal of the case within the stipulated period. Under these circumstances, we feel it appropriate to give a direction in our power of superintendence to the District Forum so that proceeding before the District Forum can be properly completed and disposed of as early as possible.