Lucy John And Ors vs Divisional Manager

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

In the nature of view which I propose to take below, I do not consider it necessary to issue notice to the respondent Insurance Company. Notice to the respondent Insurance Company is therefore dispensed with.

I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners who are the claimants in O.P.No.73/2019 pending on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Malappuram. The request made in this original petition is to issue a direction to the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum to grant an opportunity to the petitioners in O.P.No.73/2019 to adduce oral and documentary evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits he produced Ext.P4 certificate issued by an expert Engineer assessing the amount of loss caused to the building. The submission made is to the effect that the document could not be tendered in evidence since the author of the report is not presently available in India. It is further submitted that he has vital evidence to adduce in support of his claim, for which, he seeks a reasonable opportunity. It is also submitted that the claim petition has already been heard by the Forum and taken for orders also.

Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum should be called upon to extend a reasonable opportunity to the petitioners to adduce evidence in support of their claim in O.P.No.73/2019.

In the result, the original petition is disposed of calling upon the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Malappuram, to give reasonable opportunity to the petitioners to prove their case and adjourn the pronouncement of orders in O.P.No.73/2019. It is made clear that the respondent should also get sufficient opportunity to rebut the evidence given by the petitioners. The order in O.P.No.73/2019 may be passed after hearing the parties and in accordance with law.

All pending interlocutory applications are closed.