Before the Hon’ble District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission,
South 24 Parganas
Baruipur, Kolkata - 700144
Consumer Complaint Case No. 48 of 2018
In the matter
of :
Shri Abhijit
Ghosh
__________Complainant
-
Versus
–
-
M/s. Madhabi
Service Station, and Others.
_______Opposite parties
Objection to the Questionnaire filed by the
Complainant
The humble
petition on behalf of the Opposite Party no. 4 and 4(a) being the Indian Oil
Corporation Limited, most respectfully;
Showeth
as under;
1.
That the Questionnaire of the Complainant put
forward against the Evidence filed by the Opposite Party no. 4 and 4(a) being
the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, on 07-05-2025, is appeared to be a questions of law which are generally not appropriate
for cross-examination of witnesses.
Cross-examination is intended to test the credibility and
reliability of a witness's testimony regarding factual matters, not to elicit
legal interpretations or conclusions.
2. That
the questions
of law, such
as interpretations of statutes, legal rights, or duties, are for the judge to decide, not witnesses
to opine upon (unless the witness is an expert and the legal issue overlaps
with their area of expertise).
3. That
pertinently it is held consciously as “Witnesses are to depose to facts within
their personal knowledge. Interpretation of law is the domain of the
adjudicating authority.” Therefore, If a party puts legal questions to a
witness during cross-examination, such
questions should be objected to and disallowed by the Presiding
Member.
4. That the following questions of Complainant
are inadmissible;
(1) Whether Opposite Parties (OPs) are entitled to give
evidence and controvert the disputes between the complainant and O.P. No. 1?
This is a question of legal entitlement—only the Commission (not the
witness) can determine whether a party has the right to adduce evidence or
contest certain claims. The Complainant should challenge this via written
objection or argument, not through cross-examination.
(2) Whether O.P. No. 4 and 4(a) had knowledge of the order
of the State Commission adding parties in Appeal No. ...? This question could be admissible if limited
strictly to the factual question of knowledge (e.g., “Were you aware of the
order dated ...?”), but not if the goal is to extract a legal conclusion about
the validity or effect of that order.
The Complainant should reframe to a factual question of awareness, not
legal consequence.
(3) Whether OP No. 4 and 4(a) have authority to enter into
the dispute between complainant and O.P. No. 1? Explain the basis... This is a question of legal standing or locus, which
is exclusively for the Commission to decide. Witnesses cannot testify
about their own or others’ legal authority. The Complainant should raise this
as a legal objection or preliminary issue if any not in cross-examination.
(4) Are OP No. 4 and 4(a) liable for remaining present in
proceedings against the direction of the Commission...? This again concerns compliance with a legal order,
not a factual matter within the witness’s personal knowledge. The Commission
determines procedural non-compliance, if any, not the witness.
(5) Explain why the evidence of OP No. 4 and 4(a) should not
be rejected in view of the order dated ... in Appeal No. ...? This is a request for a legal argument or justification,
not a factual answer. Only the Commission can decide the admissibility or
rejection of evidence based on prior orders.
(6) Whether each allegation in Paragraph 1 to 41 of OP No. 4
and 4(a)’s reply is liable to be rejected in limine? This is entirely a legal conclusion on the validity
of pleadings. A witness cannot opine on whether pleadings should be summarily
rejected.
5.
That
the Opposite Party Nos. 4 and 4(a) respectfully submit this objection under the
applicable provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872, against the questionnaire filed by the complainant for
cross-examination of the witnesses for the following reasons:
1.
Questions Relate to
Legal Issues and Not on Facts
The questions framed by the
complainant in the purported questionnaire include, inter alia, the following:
I)
Whether
the Opposite Parties are entitled to give evidence and controvert the disputes
between the complainant and O.P. No. 1?
II)
Whether
O.P. No. 4 and 4(a) had knowledge of the order passed by the State Commission?
III)
Whether
O.P. No. 4 and 4(a) are authorised to enter into the dispute?
IV)
Why
should their evidence not be rejected in view of a particular order?
V)
Whether
pleadings are liable to be rejected in limine?
These are pure questions of law,
jurisdiction, and procedural compliance—not questions of fact—and are not
admissible in cross-examination under Section
138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which restricts
cross-examination to facts within the personal knowledge of the witness.
2.
Violation of
Established Judicial Principles
It is a well-settled principle that legal interpretation,
jurisdictional objections, and admissibility of pleadings or evidence are
within the exclusive domain of the adjudicating authority, not
the witnesses.
3.
Misuse of
Cross-Examination Procedure
Allowing such legally framed questions
would lead to an abuse of the cross-examination process by converting it into a
legal argument rather than a factual inquiry, which is contrary to the settled
procedure in consumer fora and civil law.
In view of the above, the Opposite
Party Nos. 4 and 4(a) most respectfully pray that this Hon’ble Commission may:
1. Reject and
disallow the questionnaire filed by the complainant to the
extent it contains questions of law or legal conclusions;
2. Direct the
complainant to reframe
the questionnaire, if any, strictly in terms of facts relevant
to the personal knowledge of the witness.
3. Pass such
other necessary order or orders as the Hon’ble Commission may deem, fit, and
proper for the end of Justice.
And for this
act of kindness, the Petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.
