DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
M.A. No – 310/2017
Arising out of the C. C. CASE NO- 191/2017
Date of Filing Date of Disposal
28.11.2017 31.08.2018
Complainant/s:- 1. Mahendra Kumar Bajaj,
Son of Mr. Raj Kumar Bajaj
Residing at CJ- 304, Sector- 11
Salt Lake City, P.S- Bidhannagar (Norht),
Kolkata- 700091
=Vs=
Opposite Party/s:- 1. M/s Airtel Mobile Services Ltd.
Sector 11, Salt Lake City,
Kolkata- 700091,
P.S- Bidhannagar (North)
P R E S E N T :- Sri. Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay……………President.
:- Smt. Silpi Majumder …………………. ………. ……. Member.
Order No- 10
This order is arising out of the MA being no- 310/2017 filed by the OP, Consumer Complaint no- 191/2017 challenging the maintainability of the complaint.
In the application it is stated by the OP that this complaint is filed by the complainant suppressing the material fact. This complaint is also bad in Law for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties as there is no such company like M/s Airtel Mobile Services Ltd who has been made the only OP in this complaint. There is no customer and service provider relationship by and between the complainant and the OP as the name of the OP is not exiting. For this reason this complaint is not maintainable. According to the OP if this application is not allowed the OP will be seriously prejudiced and prayer is made by the OP for allowing this application.
The application is resisted by the complainant by filing W/O stating that the complaint petition has been filed in a proper manner, but due to inadvertence the name of the OP has been written wrongly, now the complainant has sought for liberty to amend the name of the OP in the cause title of the complaint. It is further submitted by the complainant that being the Consumer Complaint the complaint should not be dismissed, further chance be given to the complainant for necessary reification to the cause title. Prayer is made by the complainant for dismissal of the application.
Cont……………….2
:2:
We have carefully perused the content of the application, filed by the OP, objection thereto and heard argument at length advanced by the Ld. Counsel by the Parties. During argument the Ld. Counsel for the Op has submitted that the complaint cannot be maintainable on the ground that within the four corners of the complaint there is no mentioning as to the cause of action. Without any cause of action/the date of cause of action the complaint cannot be maintainable as it is very much difficult to ascertain as to whether within the limitation period in view of the Section 24A of the CP Act, 1986 this complaint is filed or not. The next plea of the OP is that as the name of the OP has been wrongly mentioned in the cause title of the complaint. Moreover where such name of the OP does not exist in anywhere, the complaint cannot be maintainable.
On the contrary the argument of the complainant is that the document as filed by him is clearly revealed the date of cause of action and from the said date it can easily be ascertained that this complaint is not barred by limitation, rather the cause of action is continuing. In respect of the name of the OP it is submitted by the complainant that due to inadvertence the name of the OP has been written wrongly. But the address is written in a proper and correct manner. The complainant has submitted to give him a chance in the interest of Natural Justice to amend the name of the OP in the cause title of the complaint.
Upon considering the abovementioned argument we are of the view that admittedly the name of the OP has been written wrongly in the cause title of the complaint, but the fact remains that upon receipt of the notice the Ld. Counsel for the OP has appeared by filing Vokalatnama in favour of M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd. Admittedly W/V was filed by the OP on 22.08.2017 and this application was filed on 28.11.2017. Inspite of receipt of the W/V as well as this application the complainant did not take any step to amend the name of the OP in the cause title of the complaint as the W/V and the application reveal that the same were filed on behalf of M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd. Till date no application praying for amendment is forthcoming on behalf of the complainant. In respect of the cause of action as alleged by the OP we are of the view that admittedly in a separate paragraph in the petition of complaint the date of cause of action has not been mentioned, but the document as annexed shows that the cause of action was started on 20.12.2016 and as the grievance of the complainant has not yet been redressed by the OP, the cause of action is still continuing.
The Consumer Protection Act was enacted to protect the interest of the Consumers in a better way and to redress their grievance against the service provider in a very simple manner and without consuming much time. Being a benevolent Legislation we are inclined to give a chance to the consumer-complainant for necessary amendment in respect of the name of the OP in the cause title of the complaint without dismissing the same on this score as prayed for.
Cont……………….3
:3:
Admittedly the complainant is not very much vigilant with his complaint and in a very casual manner he use to proceed with this complaint, which the CP Act does not permit due to such inaction on behalf of the complainant for a considerable period we are inclined to impose cost on the shoulder of the complainant.
Hence in the interest of Natural Justice the MA filed by the OP is hereby dismissed on contest without any cost.
Fix …………………. For taking necessary step by the complainant for amendment in respect of the name of the OP in the cause title of the complaint along with payment of cost to the OP.
Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost as per the CPR, 2005.
Member President
Dictated and corrected by
