The short question arising for consideration in this revision petition, filed by the complainant, under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), questioning the correctness of order dated 10.10.2012 by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra is, whether the State Commission committed an error in deleting opponents no.3 to 6 from the array of parties on the ground that they were neither necessary parties nor their presence would help to settle the legitimate consumer dispute before them.

          Vide order dated 12.11.2013, the original Opponents No.4 and 5, impleaded as respondents no.4 and 5 in this revision petition, were directed to be proceeded ex parte.  Accordingly, we have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents no.1, 2, 3 and 6. 

At the outset, Mr.Puri, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that he would confine his prayer only qua Opp.party No.4.

          It is submitted by the learned counsel that the complaint contained serious allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the said opp.party (respondent no.4 herein) and therefore, in spite of the fact that they were proceeded ex parte, the complainant can prove his case and obtain a decree against them.  Learned counsel appearing for the aforesaid respondents submits that he has no objection if, without prejudice to the contentions of the said respondents on merits of complainant’s case, the impugned direction with regard to deletion of respondent no.4 from the array of parties is set aside.

          Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company submits that since the insurance company had not repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground of furnishing of wrong chassis and engine number, the main allegation against Respondent No.4, their impleadment did not have any bearing on the complaint.  According to the learned counsel, the claim was repudiated on account of breach of certain other conditions in the policy, in particular, the delay of two weeks in  informing the insurance company about the accident.  Learned counsel pray that the State Commission may be requested to decide the complaint as expeditiously as possible.

          Having regard to the afore-noted stand of the contesting parties and in order to avoid further delay in the disposal of the complaint, we set aside the impugned order qua O.P. No.4 and relegate the said respondent to the position it occupied as on 11.3.2005.  Needless to add that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the case of the petitioner against Respondent No.4 (O.P. No.4).

Revision petition stands disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.