Karnataka

StateCommission

A/1550/2022

IDFC First Bank Ltd, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr. Sanjeeva .K.Nayak, - Opp.Party(s)

Chandrashekar N

01 Aug 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE

 

DATED THIS THE 01^ST DAY OF AUGUST 2022

 

PRESENT

 

SRI. RAVI SHANKAR                         : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. SUNITA C. BAGEWADI              : MEMBER

 

Appeal No. 1550/2022

IDFC First Bank Ltd. Head Office at : KRM Towers 7th Floor, No.1, Harrington Road Chelpet, Chennai 600 031 Branch Office at: KCA Enclave 2nd Floor, Police Station Road Koramangala, Bangalore 560 095   Rep. by its authorized officer, Ms. Ramya R. (By Sri. Suresh V.) V/s	….Appellant
Dr. Sanjeeva K. Nayak S/o. Keshappa Lamani R/at No.66, 2nd Cross Kirloskar Layout Hesaraghatta Main Road Bangalore 560 073	..…Respondent

O R D E R

 

BY SRI RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

The OP No.2 filed this appeal against the order passed by the I Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore in C.C.No.836/2020 which dismissed the I.A. filed by this appellant under Order I Rule 10(2) to implead L & T Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore as 4^th OP to the complaint and submits that the complainant initially had filed the complaint against this OP alleging deficiency in service in reflecting loan raised by him as business loan instead of personal loan due to which the employer had terminated his job, as such claimed compensation.

2. After appearance before District Commission they filed version and contended that there is no any deficiency in service and on observation of the pleadings of complainant they have initiated application under Order I Rule 10(2) to implead L & T Technologies Pvt. Ltd. who have terminated the complainant, to know the grounds for dismissal.  Hence, prayed to allow the application before District Commission.  The District Commission dismissed the application as they are not the necessary parties to the proceedings, against which the appellant is before this commission.  Further they have filed application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 139 days in filing appeal along with affidavit.
3. Heard the arguments.
4. On going through the order passed by the District Commission on IA we noticed here that this OP had intended to bring the said proposed OP No. 4 L & T Technologies Pvt. Ltd. on record for the purpose to know whether the said proposed OP removed complainant from employment for the reason of mentioning loan obtained by complainant as business loan or for any other reasons.  Hence, it is necessary to bring the said employer of complainant as proposed OP, but, the District Commission has dismissed the application for the reason that complainant has not made any claim against said proposed OP and dispute is not related to the said proposed OP.
5. Of course, we agree with the order passed by the District Commission that complainant has not sought any relief against propose OP, whereas the OP No.2 had filed an application only in order to know the reason for termination of the complainant from employment from the said proposer.  For that purpose the said employer cannot be impleaded as necessary party to this complaint.  The District Commission rightly dismissed the application as there is no any dispute arose against said proposed OP No.4.  Hence, appeal also fails.
6. Further we noticed that the appeal is filed after lapse of 139 days.  The reason assigned in the affidavit filed along with application to condone the delay in preferring appeal is that the appellant had been to out station on deputation on official work and he was not present personally to give necessary instruction to Learned Advocate.  Hence, prays to condone the delay.  The reason sworn in the affidavit is not satisfactory and is not justifiable.  In this ground also the appeal is liable to be dismissed.  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

 

MEMBER                                   JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

CV*