Per Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Judicial Member
Heard Mr.J.B.Gai-A.R. for the revisionist. Opponent though served preferred to remain absent.
This revision petition is directed against the order dated 24/02/2010 passed in consumer complaint no.221/09, Smt.Sneha Suhas Waikul v/s. Manager, Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. and others; by Central Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (‘forum’ in short). Said order is passed on the application moved on behalf of revisionist/org.complainant (herein after referred as ‘revisionist’ ) to implead as party in whose favour the vehicle was alleged to have been transferred by the opponent/ Financial institution, who had taken possession of the vehicle on the ground of default. Forum rejected said application and feeling aggrieved thereby, this revision is preferred.
Since the Financial institution itself alleged that the vehicle which they took in possession was sold in favour of third party Mr.Sachin Vijay Parkar, his presence would have helped the forum to settle the dispute properly. It is true that there is no question of hiring any service of the purchaser of the vehicle i.e. third party but nevertheless once the opponent is held responsible for deficiency in service, as alleged, question of compensation or restoration of the vehicle would arise and, therefore, if the purchaser is on record, it would help the forum to settle the dispute justly and properly. Forum did not apply its mind in this perspective and committed an error in law. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:-
ORDER
Revision petition is allowed.
Impugned order dated 24/02/2010 is set aside. In effect, application to implead Mr.Sachin Vijay Parkar as opponent no.4 in the original consumer complaint is allowed. Revisionist/original complainant to take necessary steps to implead him in the complaint.
Copy of this order be forwarded to the forum.
Pronounced dated 8th June, 2011.
Ms.
