SUBHRA SANKAR BHATTA, PRESIDING MEMBER
Both the Ld. Counsels appearing for the respective parties to the revision petition are present.
Today is fixed for passing order.
Perused the contention of the Revision Petition.
Seen the documents available on record.
Considered the submissions advanced on 10.08.2022 by the respective Ld. Counsels for the respective parties to the Revision Petition.
By virtue of present Revision Petition, the Petitioner Viz. the Managing Director, TATA CAPITAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., has prayed for allowing the present Revision Petition after setting aside the order dated 17.10.2019 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata-1(North). The Petitioner has filed the present Revision Petition assailing the impugned order dated. 17.10.2019 passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Kol-1(North) in connection with complaint case being no. CC/174 of 2019. It has been specifically contended that the Complainant has filed the complaint case impleading the Managing Director, TATA CAPITAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., in person, as Op No. 2 though there are no such allegations based by reasons in regard to deficiency of service or unfair trade practices on the part of the present Petitioner. There is also no cause of action for bringing the complaint against the present Petitioner. In the circumstances, the present Petitioner/ Op No. 2 filed an application before the Ld. Forum below for expunging his name from the array of the parties in the said Complaint. Ultimately, Ld. Forum below was pleased to reject the said application on consent 17.10.2019 after considering the submissions of the respective parties.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order of the Ld. Forum below Op no 2 as Petitioner has preferred the present Revision Petition challenging the legality, irregularity & impropriety of the impugned order on the following grounds:
That the Ld. District Forum failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested upon by law: that the Ld. District Forum exceeded its jurisdiction while passing the impugned order; that the Ld. Fora below failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case; that the Ld. Commission below failed to appreciate the fact that the present Petitioner is not at all involved in the day to day transactions of its Branches. That the present Revisionist/Petitioner cannot be made a Party in his personal capacity; that the Ld. Forum below failed to appreciate that the matter is required to be considered in a judicious manner; that the Ld. Forum below erred in holding that it is the discretion of the Complainant to whom he will make Party. According to the Ld. Counsel for the Revisionist/Petition the Managing Director cannot be impleaded as Party by his designation; that the impugned order is absolutely erroneous and untenable in the eye of Law. On all such grounds the Revisionist/Petitioner has prayer for relief as sought for in the prayer portion of the Revision Petition. In support of the above contention Ld. Counsel for the Revisionist Petitioner has cited the following decisions reported in:-
- National Small Industries Corporation Vs Harmeet Singh Paintal, (2010)3SCC Page 330.
- (2010)1SCC (Civil), Page 677
- (2010)2SCC(Cri) Page 1113
On the other hand Ld. Counsel, appearing for Respondent No. 1 has submitted that the present Revision Petition cannot be and should not be allowed on any ground.It has been highlighted much that the Ld. Forum below after considering the arguments of both sides and keeping in mind the pleadings of the Parties arrived at a correct decision and passed the order. Practically, there is no error,irregularity and illegality in the said order and resultantly the order impugned in the present Revision Petition requires to be sustained. The cited decisions have no application in the present facts and circumstances of the present case.The facts and circumstances of the cited decisions and the facts and circumstances of the present Revision Application are not same and alike in nature.
On meticulous perusal of the order dtd. 17.10.2019 passed by the Ld. Fora below we are of the concrete view that without receiving evidence (both oral and documentary) from the Respective Parties to the complaint case the very question of expunging the name of Op No. 2 from the cause title of the complaint petition cannot be and should not be adjudged effectively.In fact, we do not find any error or illegality in the order impugned.
As a result, the present Revision Petition is liable to be rejected.The impugned order does not deserve any interference of this authority.The order dt. 17.10.2019 requires to be sustained.
It is,
Therefore,
O R D E R E D
That the Present Revision Petition being RP No. 131/2019 be and the same is dismissed on contest without any order as to cost.
The order dt. 17.10.2019 stands confirmed.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the Ld. Commission below at once for information and taking necessary action.
Thus the Revision Petition stands disposed of.
Note accordingly.
