MANI SQUARE LIMITED Vs. MANISH SARAF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE factual backgrounds just for appreciation of issues raised need to be noticed with brevity. Pursuant to a bilateral talk between the parties, respondent No. 1 paid Rs. 1,00,000/ - towards booking of flat bearing unit No. 4AA which was contemplated to be constructed at premises No. 7, G.B. Lane, Kolkata. Agreement between the parties for some reason or other could not be executed despite such commitment allegedly having been made by petitioner No. 1. Aggrieved, respondent No. 1 filed a consumer complaint with District Forum, seeking direction to petitioner for execution of the Deed of Conveyance in respect of unit in question on receipt of residual consideration money. Award of compensation of Rs. 50,000/ - was also sought among other reliefs. Petitioner challenged maintainability of complaint case, which did not find favour with State Commission and finding of State Commission was upheld by National Commission also. Opp.party, petitioner herein, while controverting the averments made in complaint, also, took defence that booking money paid to them had been refunded along -with interest. During pendency of proceeding before State Commission, respondent herein, the complainant, filed an affidavit buttressing the averments made in petition of complaint, a copy of which was also served on the adversary. Opp.party, petitioner herein moved State Commission seeking indulgence of the Commission to cross -examine complainant who had put her affidavit on record. State Commission by a reasoned order, however, negating contentions raised on behalf of petitioner held that filing of interrogatories to elicit answer from deponent would serve the purpose. Now, petitioner is in revision before us.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for petitioner with his lucid submission, seeks to impress us that in view of the nature of dispute involved, filing of interrogatories would not be an effective recourse to be adopted in the matter to elicit essential information from deponent to demolish the case of respondent No. 1. Stretching his submission, learned counsel would refer to a decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the matter of Dr. J.J. Merchant and Ors. Vs. Srinath Chaturvedi, 2002 6 SCC 635. The object with which the consumer foras were constituted under the Act for speedy adjudication of the issue in a summary proceeding without going into the gamut of full dress trial, cannot be undermined. The Hon ble Apex court had occasion to observe that for avoiding delay in disposal of complaints within the prescribed period, National Commission is required to take appropriate steps including in cases where cross -examination of the persons who have filed affidavits is necessary, suggested questions of cross -examination be given to the persons who have tendered their affidavits and reply may be also on affidavit though in cases of necessity, video conferencing or telephonic conference may also be resorted to by the consumer fora. In terms of section 13(4), the consumer foras are empowered to exercise powers vested in civil courts for discovery and production of a document, the reception of evidence on affidavit and of issuing any commission qua examination of any witness. The Hon ble Apex court in this context, also, made observations in the following terms : -

(3.) STATE Commission while adjudicating the issue had taken notice also of a decision of National Commission in OP No. 233/1996 in which too, following observations came to be made : -