West Bengal

StateCommission

IA/777/2018

Sri Arunangshu Basu Ray - Complainant(s)

Versus

Axis Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Ms. Tanusree Dhar

10 Oct 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
WEST BENGAL
11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087
 
Interlocutory Application No. IA/777/2018
( Date of Filing : 13 Jul 2018 )
In
Complaint Case No. CC/520/2017
 
1. Sri Arunangshu Basu Ray
S/o Lt. Amllya Kumar Ray, being constiuted attorney of his son Dr. Indranil Basu Ray, Ashalata Neer, 70A, Abinash Chandra Banerjee Lane, Kolkata -700 010, P.S. Beliaghata.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Axis Bank Ltd.
1, Shakespeare Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata - 71.
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA MEMBER
 
For the Appellant:Ms. Tanusree Dhar, Advocate
For the Respondent:
Dated : 10 Oct 2018
Final Order / Judgement

Sri Utpal Kumar Bhattacharya, Member

            Both sides are present through their respective Ld. Advocates.

            Instant IA bearing number IA/777/2018 is taken up for passing necessary order today.

            We had heard both sides on earlier occasion. We have perused the contents of the IA and the allied record.

            The Complainant, in the instant IA, had prayed for inclusion of the name of Dr. Indranil Basu Ray as Complainant no.2 and submitted, unless the said name was included in the Complaint, the interest of the Complainant would be seriously prejudiced.

            The Ld. Advocate had also brought to the notice of the Bench that the interest of the new person whose name has been prayed for inclusion in the instant Complaint as Complainant No.2 was directly related to the issue and accordingly, his inclusion in the Complaint was of utmost necessity for proper assessment of the merit of the case.

            The Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the OPs objected to the above prayer filing the written objection and submitted that the present Complainant was the father of the person whose name was prayed for inclusion in the Complaint as Complainant No. 2. Incidentally, the interest of the person whose name has been prayed for inclusion in the Complaint as Complainant was directly connected with the instant issue and accordingly, the Complaint was having the demerits of both misjoinder and non-joinder of parties. The Complainant, as continued took the corrective measure filing the instant IA after the above mentioned shortcoming was put to question in the WV and questionnaire filed by the OP. As the Ld. Advocate continued, the interest of the OP too would be seriously prejudiced if the inclusion, as prayed for is allowed. She prayed for the IA to be rejected.

             We have considered submission of the Ld. Advocates appearing on behalf of both sides.

            We feel either of the two actions, contemplated hereunder, may be taken to resolve the issue.

  1. We may allow the IA providing the Complainant a scope to set aright the Complaint eliminating the demerits pointed out in the instant IA. The proposition appeared to be logical and not legally unsound as the Complaint, if rejected, since would not be heard on merit, liberty would be given to the Complainant to file the Complaint afresh rectifying the shortcoming. This would yield nothing to either of the parties but would delay the process since some steps like issuing of notice, admission hearing, filing of WV etc. were to be followed de-novo.
  2. We may reject the IA which too will not be illegal but lacking in logic a bit in view of the fact that the action will act contrary to the interest of the Complainant as the disposal of a case, already sufficiently delayed will be further delayed merely on the ground of some technicalities and the established principle of law is the Consumer Fora, in case of such a dilemma, will go for protecting the interest of the consumer first.

            In the above context, we may rely on the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 2340/2014 [TDI Infrastructure Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh], reported in III (2018) CPJ 139 (NC), wherein the Hon’ble National Commission is pleased to observe that we should, in the interest of justice, take the matter to its logical conclusion at earliest possible, rather than, initiating the whole process again by asking consumer to file a fresh complaint in matter before State Commission.

            It is felt that the proposition 1 has outweighed the proposition 2 leading to us to take the decision as under:-

            The IA/777/2018 stands allowed. Let the name of Sri Indranil Basu Roy be included in the Complaint as Complainant No.2

            The Bench clerk is directed to incorporate necessary correction in the Complaint accordingly.

            The Complainant is hereby directed to incorporate necessary correction in the Complaint accordingly.

            The Complainant is hereby further directed to file the amended Memo of Complaint in required number of copies after the said copies being served upon the OP.

            IA/777/2018 stands disposed of accordingly.

            Fix 20-11-2018 for filing additional W.V., if any.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.