R.P.No.40/2010 against I.A.No.66/2010 in E.A.No.2/2010 in C.C.No.67/2009, DISTRICT FORUM, VIZIANAGARAM.

Between:

P.Bandhava Rao, Divisional Co-operative

Officer, Vizianagaram, Divisional

Co-operative office, Vizianagaram,

Liquidator, Co-operative Urban Bank

Ltd., Vizianagaram, Kapsa Road,

Vizianagaram District.                                                                               ..Petitioner/Respondent                                                                                                                                                        J.Dr.No.2

And

1. Sri Kalagarla Sankara Rao, S/o.late Gandhi,

    50 years, residing at Dakkini Veedhi,

    Vizianagaram.                                                                                        Respondent/Petitioner/

                                                                                                                   Complainant.

2. The Secretary, The Vizianagaram

    Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd.,

    Kapsa Road, Vizianagaram District.                                                     Respondent/Respondent/

                                                                                                                   J.Dr.No.1

Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s.A.V.Sesha Sai

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. M.S.R.Subrahmanyam-R1

   R2-served.

 QUORUM:   THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT                                                 

AND

SMT.M.SHREESHA,  MEMBER

.

TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF OCTOBER,

TWO THOUSAND TEN

Oral order:(Per Hon’ble Justice Sri D.Appa Rao, President)
***

        Heard. 

        None appears for R1 and R2.

        This is a revision preferred against the order of the District Forum in I.A.No.66/2010 in E.A.No.2/2010 in impleading the revision petitioner as a party without even issuing notice to him in the proceedings U/s.27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

          The complainant, one K.Sankara Rao, filed the complaint U/s.12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for recovery of the amount covered under FDR receipt against the Co-operative Society on which the District Forum after enquiry by its order dated 11-12-2009 directed the Co-operative Society respondent No.1 to pay Rs.7,500/- under certificate bearing No.78948 and Rs.1,250/- under certificate No.64881  together with interest at 9%  p.a. from 2-12-2002 and 4-5-1993 respectively together with compensation of Rs.2,000/- and costs of Rs.1,500/-.

          The complainant filed E.A.No.2/2010 U/s.27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to punish respondent for non compliance of the said order.  The complainant also filed I.A.No.66/2010 to implead the revision petitioner i.e. liquidator of the bank, to proceed with the execution of the order against him.  The District Forum even without  issuing notice allowed the application directing the liquidator, revision petitioner, to be impleaded.

          Aggrieved by the said order, this revision has been preferred alleging that this is  in violation of principles of natural justice as he was not a party to the main complaint.  He could not have been impleaded as a party to the proceedings U/s.27 of Consumer Protection Act that too without notice.

          Admittedly the revision petitioner is not a party to the complaint.  For the reasons best known to it, the District Forum without issuing notice to the revision petitioner allowed the application when the complainant sought to implead the revision petitioner as a party. The District Forum did not adhere to the provisions of Co-operative Societies Act or provisions of Consumer Protection Act while allowing the application.  It is contrary to the principles of natural justice. We need not mention herein that principle of audi alteram partam is  the fundamental principle of natural justice, the District Forum ought not to have proceeded under a penal provision that too U/s.27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

          In the circumstances, we allow the revision and set aside the order of the District Forum in I.A. and direct it to restore the application to its file.  The Revision petitioner is directed to file its counter/objections and thereafter the District Forum shall pass orders on merits. 

With this observation, the revision petition is disposed of, however, no order as to costs.

Sd/-PRESIDENT.

Sd/-MEMBER.

JM                                                                                                             Dt.05-10-2010