I 5'6 e- * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + w.P.(c) 847312007 KETAB SHAH & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Srenik Singhvi with Ms. Sonia Khurana, Advocates versus NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Harpreet Singh and Mr. Rajesh Gupta, Advocates for Respondent No. 6. WITH + w.P.(c) 7397I2OOA THE JUNGLE RESORT & WATER PARK & ORS. Through: None. ""' Petitioners versus NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Harpreet Singh and Mr. Rajesh Gupta, Advocates for Respondent No. 4. Mr. Srenik Singhvi with Ms. Sonia Khurana, Advts for R-2 and R-3 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAMAJIT SEN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.L.BHAYANA ORDER o/o 03.L1-.2008 The parties have challenged the order of the National Consumer Redressal Commission, New Delhi passed on 31 .8.2OO7 , which reads thus - "We do not think that it is a fit case where after granting permission to serve interrogatories we should allow the cross- examination of the witnesses. Miscellaneous Application is dismissed. To be listed on 22.tt.07, the date already fixed" w.P.(c) 847312007 with W.P.(C> 7397|2OOB Page L of 3 Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified I 3 The Commission had, on the previous hearing held on 2.8.2007, passed. the following order: "It is stated that cost of Rs.2,500/- has been paid to the Complainant and cost of Rs.2,500/- has also been deposited with the NCDRC Legal Aid Account. Ld. counsel for the Opposite Party states that he will file the receipt of amount deposited with the NCDRC Legal Aid Account within a week. Ld. Counsel for the Opposite parby has filled application seeking permission for cross-examination of the witnesses of the Complainant. Both the parties are directed to exchange the interrogatories in respect of the affidavits filed by them by way of evidence within four weeks. Reply to the interrogatories be filed by the Complainant within four weeks thereafter. After that reply be filed by the opposite party within four weeks. :. Adjourned to 22.t1,.07 for direction and further ' proceedings. Brief note of submissions not exceeding more than three pages each be filed by the parties counsel alongwith the judgements relied upon by them before the next date of hearing." On 2.8.2007, the Commission had taken note of the fact that one of the parties had prayed for permission to cross examine witnesses. The Commission appears on its own initiative to have directed the parLies to exchange interrogatories. Neither of the parties had, however, done so. It is contended that Section 13 (4) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, does not contemplate the filing of Interrogatories although it specifically enables Discovery and Production of the documents. It is beyond cavil that Interrogatories are not a substitute for cross examination; they are intended to narrow the dispute between the parties so that cross-examination may be shortened. We cannot conceive of a situation where answers to an interrogatory would render cross examination wholly superfluous. The situation is exacerbated by the fact that both the parties had desired to , cross-examine the witnesses of the other. w.P.(C) 847312007 with w.P.(C) 7397lzoos Page 2 of 3 1 The circumstances of the case, therefore, proper to justify us exercise our extra-ordinary powers under Article 226 of. the Constitution India. Impugned orders dated 2.8.2007 and 3r-.8.2007 are set asid.e. The Commission shall now fix a date for the cross-examination of the Complainant's witnesses and thereafter for the cross-examination of the Opposite Parby. Learned counsel for the parties submit that since the cause of action has arisen in Palghar, Maharashtra, a Local / court commissioner may be appointed for recording the cross-examination. This is within the province of the Commission and we, therefore, decline to pass any ord.er in this regard. Needless to say, the parties may make this prayer to the commission. The Writ Petitions are allowed accordingly. S.L.BHAYAN& J. NOVEMBER 03, 2OO8 rb w.P.(C) B473|2OO7 with w.P.(C\ 7397|2OOS page 3 of 3 uo ",1- f+UU'," e,J oq 3- | l- o I fte6h 4u leevsfo6p Q"- Dr'"e.c5'j,,. to of I L