BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD
R.P.No.84 OF 2013 AGAINST I.A.NO.170 OF 2012 IN C.C.NO.88 OF 2012 DISTRICT FORUM-II HYDERABAD
Between:
1. JVS Shashank S/o J.Ananda Mohan
Aged about 14 years, Occ: Student
being minor rep. by his father
And natural guardian J.Ananda Mohan
2. J.Ananda Mohan S/o J.Janaki Ramulu
Aged about 44 years, Occ: Private Service
Both are R/o Flat No.402, Plot No.534 & 535
Swarnamukhi Apartment, VI Phase
KPHB, Hyderabad
Revision Petitioners/petitioners/complainants
A N D
1. Krishna Institute of medical Sciences Ltd.,
D.No.1-8-31/1, Minister Road, Sec’bad-003
Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director
2. Dr.EA Vara Lakshmi
Neuro Physican
Krishna Institute of Medical Sciences Ltd.,
D.No.1-8-31/1, Minister Road, Sec’bad-003
3. M/s Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.,
D.No.6-2-975, 1st Floor, Pavani Estates
Khairatabad, Hyderabad-004, rep. by
Its Branch Manager.
Respondents/respondents/opposite parties
Counsel for the Revision Petitioners M/s V.Gourisankar Rao
Counsel for the Respondent M/s M.Chalapathi Rao(R1&2)
M/s E.Venugopal Reddy (R3)
QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE I/C PRESIDENT
&
SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER
TUESDAY THE TENTH DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN
Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble I/c President)
***
1. This revision is preferred by the complainant against the order of the Dist. Forum refusing to implead M/s Oriental insurance company as opposite partyno.3 in the complaint on the ground that the District Forum has no power to follow the procedure prescribed under 13(4) of C.P.Act or the provisions of O.1 R.10 CPC.
2. Aggrieved by the said order the complainant filed this revision contending that the District Forum did not appreciate that the complainant filed the complaint against the opposite parties no.1 and 2 claiming compensation and in their written version the opposite partis no.1 and 2 pleaded that the opposite partyno.1 obtained indemnity insurance policy from the proposed opposite partyno.3/the insurance company. Therefore they intended that the insurance company be impleaded as party.
3. The District Forum after considering the matter dismissed the application on the ground that it has no power to implead the insurance company under the provisions of Sec.13(4) of C.P.Act and it has no power to exercise the provisions of O.1 R.10 of CPC.
4. The point that arises for consideration is whether the Dist. Forum has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity?
5. There is no denying the fact that the respondents no.1 and 2 treated the parent of the petitioners and they filed the complaint seeking compensation from the respondents no.1 and 2 as also that the respondents’ no.1 and 2 pleaded that the respondent no.1 obtained indemnity insurance policy from the proposed respondent no.3/M/s New India Assurance Co., Ltd.,
6. The respondents no.1 and 2 have reported no objection for impleadment of the insurance company as party to the proceedings. The respondent no.3 which is sought to be impleaded has not chosen to contest the petition. The District Forum dismissed the petition on the premise that it has no jurisdiction to implead the proposed party. The provisions of Section 13(4), (6) and (7) provide for various situations to be dealt with and they read as under:
(4) For the purposes of this section, the District Forum shall have the same powers as are vested in a civil court under Code of Civil Procedure, 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.
(6) Where the complainant is a consumer referred to in sub-clause (iv) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 2, the provisions of rule 8 of Order I of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) shall apply subject to the modification that every reference therein to a suit or decree shall be construed as a reference to a complaint or the order of the District Forum thereon.
(7) In the event of death of a complainant who is a consumer or of the opposite party against whom the complaint has been filed, the provisions of Order XXII of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) shall apply subject to the modification that every reference therein to the plaintiff and the defendant shall be construed as reference to a complainant or the opposite party, as the case may be.
7. Section 13(6) provides for exercise of power in terms of O.1 R.8 CPC and Section 13(7) of the C.P. Act provides for impleadment of legal heirs of the complainant on the death of the complainant and exercise of powers by the District Forum under the provisions of order XXII of CPC. Thus, the provisions empower the District Forum exercise its power for impleadment of the parties and representation of the parties by one party. As such, it cannot be said that no power has been conferred on the District Forum to implead a party to the complaint as and when the circumstances intervened warranting the complainant to implead the party.
8. The object of enactment of the C.P.Act is to render speedy and inexpensive justice to the consumers. The spirit of the Act does provide for the disposal of the cases in a short span of time and if the petitioner is not permitted to implead the insurance company, it would lead in case the complaint is allowed warranting the respondents no.1 and 2 file another complaint against the insurance company which would be a multiplicity of proceedings and waste of time of the parties and the consumer forum as well.
9. In the result the revision petition is allowed setting aside the order of the Distract Forum. Consequently, the petition I.A.No.170 of 2012 is allowed permitting the petitioner to implead M/s New India Assurance Company Limited as opposite partyno.3 in C.C.No.88 of 2012. There shall be no separate order as to costs.
Sd/-
I/C PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Dt.10.12.2013
కె.ఎం.కె.*
