GOLDBRICKS INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD Vs. RATANKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai dated 19.1.2015 in CC/13/31 which reads as under: -

(2.) LEARNED Shri Gagan Sanghi, Advocate for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the State Commission by declining permission to cross examine the complainant has deprived the opposite party of his valuable right to test the veracity and correctness of the affidavit evidence of the complainant on the anvil of cross examination. It is further contended that the State Commission has declined permission to cross examine the complainant on a wrong plea that it would delay the progress of the complaint particularly when on the date of impugned order, the counsel for the complainant had given no objection to the request of the petitioner provided the cross examination of the complainant was recorded on that very day. It is argued that if the State Commission was really worried about the delay in disposal of the complaint, it could have allowed cross examination on the basis of concession given by the counsel for the complainant and recorded the cross examination on the same day. Learned counsel for the petitioner has thus urged us to set aside the impugned order and allow cross examination of the complainant to test the veracity of his version.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent has fairly conceded that he has no objection if the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner/opposite party is permitted to cross examine the complainant provided the cross examination is recorded on the next date of hearing fixed before the State Commission without any further delay.