DAt2 22/10/2012
O R A L O R D E R
Per Mr.B.A.Shaikh, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.
1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 23/01/2012 passed in C.C.No. 427/2009 whereby the Dist. Forum, Latur has rejected the amendment application holding that there is no provision under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for making amendment in the complaint. It is submitted by the advocate of the original complainant i.e. revision petitioner that the amendment in the complaint is sought when the complainant received order of S.E.B.I. under which direction was given to the respondent to pay entire amount under scheme to the investor, to which they are entitled at the end of given time. He also submitted that on receiving that order, it is found by the complainant that he is entitled to Rs 69,000/- with interest. He relied upon the observations made by the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chenai Surya Sees –Versus- V.Ramanathan reported in I (2008) CPJ 163, in which it was found that no new cause of action is being introduced by way of amendment of pleadings and hence amendment was allowed.
2. On the other hand the advocate of the respondent relied upon the observation made by the Hon’ble National Commission in the case M/s.Noronha Chemburkar – Versus – Mr.Ronnie W. Souza decided on 03 September, 2001. It is observed by the Hon’ble National Commission that the objects of Consumer Protection Act and that fact that written statement is required to be filed within 30 days of the opposite party getting copy of the complaint and in any case within the extended period not exceeding 15 days, a complaint is required to be decided within a certain set frame of time. Provisions of code of Civil Procedure as such are not applicable. The only requirement being the observance of rules of natural justice. By such type of application filed at the fag end of the case seeking amendment of the written statement cannot be allowed, otherwise District Forums will all be converted into Civil Court where applications of amendment of written statement are filed and as a matter of course are being allowed, unless the court feels amendment sought is mala fide. We see no ground to interfere with the order of the District Forum and affirmed by the State Commission. This revision petition is therefore, dismissed.
The advocate of the respondent thus submitted that there is no provision for amendment in the complaint and as the complainant is introducing no cause of action and ultimately prayer is being changed, the Dist. Forum has rightly rejected the application made for amendment.
3. It is made clear by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case that in such a case the only requirement being the observance of rules of natural justice and amendment at the fag end of the case cannot be allowed. In the instant case amendment in complaint is not sought at the fag end. The amendment sought for is only to increase claim from Rs 12,000/- to Rs 69,000/- based on the order of S.E.B.I. The petitioner learnt about that order subsequent to filing of the complaint. No new case is being introduced by way of amendment in the complaint. Hence to avoid multiplicity of proceeding, rules of natural justice demands that the said amendment be allowed. The aforesaid case law relied upon by advocate of respondents is thus of no assistance to respondent.
Hence we hold that impugned order is not legal, correct and proper. Therefore it needs to be set aside in this revision.
O R D E R
1. Revision petition is allowed.
2. The impugned judgment and order dated 23/01/2012 passed in CC.No.427/2009 is hereby set aside.
3. The application for amendment is granted. The said amendment be carried out within 30 days in the complaint by petitioner on receiving copy of this order.
4. No order as to cost.
5. Copies of the order be issued to both the parties.
