GAJANAN DEVIDAS PATIL Vs. SUNIL PRALHAD SHEWALE
LAWS(MHCDRC)-2008-9-3
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on September 10,2008

Gajanan Devidas Patil Appellant
VERSUS
Sunil Pralhad Shewale Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THERE is delay of 28 days in filing the revision petition. Therefore misc. application for condonation of delay is filed. Delay is not deliberate or intentional. We are therefore inclined to condone the delay. Delay is condoned. Misc. application for condonation of delay is allowed.
(2.) HEARD Mr. U.B. Wavikar, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. U.B. Shinde, Advocate for the respondent.
(3.) FORUM below rejected the prayers made by the complainant, who is purchaser of row house. Applications filed by the complainant and O.P. were rejected by the District Consumer Forum on the assumption that the District Consumer Forum had no right to appoint Court Commissioner. There is dispute with regard to dimension of the row house sold to the complainant. According to builder there is extra area admeasuring 160 sq.ft. for which complainant is required to pay extra price. Both the parties moved the District Consumer Forum for appointment of Court Commissioner to put an end to the dispute with regard to dimension of the property. District Consumer Forum has observed that the power to appoint Court Commissioner is not vested with the District Consumer Forum. District Consumer Forum approached the case from wrong angle. Consumer Forum is a quasi judicial Forum. Disputes are to be settled. District Consumer Forum is competent enough to settle the consumer disputes. District Consumer Forum has not taken into consideration Section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. We are inclined to reproduce the Sub -section (4) of Section 13: "For the purposes of this section, the District Consumer Forum shall have the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) while trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely: (i) the summoning and enforcing the attendance of any defendant or witness and examining the witness on oath, (ii) the discovery and production of any document or other material object producible as evidence, (iii) the reception of evidence on affidavits, (iv) the requisitioning of the report of the concerned analysis or test from the appropriate laboratory or from any other relevant source, (v) issuing of any commission for the examination of any witness, and (vi) any other matter which may be prescribed." We have underlined the relevant portion, in order to convey to District Consumer Forum that there is implicit authority to appoint the Court Commissioner. District Consumer Forum is authorized to issue summons and to enforce the attendance of the defendants or witnesses. Architect or Engineer is an expert witness. In order to resolve the dispute the District Consumer Forum can summon and enforce the attendance of any witness.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.