Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
Mr.Umesh Mangawe, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr.S.S. Khot, Advocate for respondent No.2 and Mr.K.A. Suryanarayanan, Advocate for respondent No.1 files affidavit through Advocate Ms.Rohini Kamble. She undertakes to file authority letter. Respondent No.1 also filed address memo of respondent No.1. Advocate Mr.Khot files Vakalatnama, taken on record. He files an application to bring certain documents on record. Said application is allowed. Documents are taken on record.
Heard.
This is a Revision Petition filed challenging the order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolhapur in consumer complaint No.32/2011. By order dated 05/11/2011 the Forum allowed the application of Mr.Radhakrishnan B. Nair and made him as ‘Opponent No.2’ in the consumer complaint filed by the revision petitioner. The petitioner filed consumer complaint alleging that he is proprietor of Swapnali Industries. He had opened a Current Bank Account in respondent No.1/Bank and he had deposited some amount on behalf of Swapnali Industries. When he went to withdraw certain amount, he was not permitted to do so by the Bank and therefore, the Bank was deficient in service. Defence of the Bank is that they had acted on the instructions given by Mr.Radhakrishnan B. Nair, who is now made third party/opponent No.2 in the consumer complaint pending before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. We are of the view that by allowing the application presented by Mr.Radhakrishnan B. Nair, the nature of complaint has not changed. Complainant’s complaint will have to be decided on the basis of his own pleadings vis-à-vis the defence raised by opponent No.1/Bank. So, mere addition of Mr.Radhakrishnan B. Nair in the proceeding is hardly going to make any difference so far as complainant’s own case is concerned. Moreover, there is material on record to suggest that Mr.Radhakrishnan B. Nair may be a partner of Swapnali Industries in which the complainant is also a partner. There is certified copy of registration certificate issued by the Registrar of Firms, Pune. Therefore, in our view the order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum is appearing to be just and proper and there seems to be no merit in the Revision Petition filed by the complainant. For just decision of the consumer dispute, presence of Mr.Radhakrishnan B. Nair before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum will be very much beneficial to all the parties concerned. Hence, the order :-
-: ORDER :-
1. Revision Petition stands dismissed.
2. Complaint should be decided by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum without relying on any observations made by this Commission while disposing off this Revision Petition.
3. No order as to costs.
4. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced
Dated 29th February 2012.
