Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

This Revision is directed against the Order dated 10-08-2016 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata-II (Central) in C.C. No. 311/2016.

It is the case of the Revisionists that Air Asia and its agent Akbar Travels are necessary parties to the complaint and unless they are impleaded to the case, the instant complaint cannot be effectively decided.  Accordingly, they moved a petition  under Order 1, Rule 10(2) of the CPC.  However, the instant petition since been rejected by the Ld. District Forum; this Revision ensued.

Per contra case of the Respondents is that the impugned order was fully justified.  Inaction on the part of the Revisionists to refund the amount, collected from the Respondents, was a clear case of deficiency in service and as there was no privity of contract in between the proposed parties vis-à-vis Respondents, they were not necessary parties to the case.

Heard the Ld. Advocates of both sides.

Under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the burden of proof that there was deficiency in service on the part of the service provider primarily falls on the Complainant.  Therefore, it is the sole discretion of the Complainant as to how he would proceed with his/her case.  The OP, under no circumstances, can force its will upon the Complainant.  At best, the OP can point out the technical loopholes of a complaint and thereafter, it is up to the Complainant take a call on the issue.  Having said that, we would also like to make it clear that if the Revisionists successfully prove at the time of hearing that the complaint indeed suffers from mis-joinder/non-joinder of parties and the District Forum accepts such proposition, the complaint would anyway go. 

In view of this, we find no infirmity with the impugned order.

Accordingly, the Revision fails.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

That the Revision be and the same is dismissed on contest but without any cost.  The impugned order is hereby affirmed.