KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION No. 61/2023

ORDER DATED: 24.08.2023

(Against the Order in C.C. 259/2022 of CDRC, Palakkad)

PRESENT:

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.                                                    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A                                              : MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                        : MEMBER

REVISION PETITIONER:

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Mahindra Towers, Dr. G.M. Bhosale Marg, Worli, Mumbai- 400018.

                           (By Advs. Saji Mathew  & R. Narayan)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Rajesh. S, S/o Sukumaran, Parakkal House, Erimayur P.O, Chullimada,  Alathur Taluk, Palakkad District- 678546.

2. The Manager, M/s. Eram Motors Pvt. Ltd, 476/2, Paniyampadam,  Muttikulangara P.O, Mundur, Palakkad- 678 594.

ORDER

SMT. BEENAKUMARY. A : MEMBER

This Revision Petition is filed against the dismissal of an impleading petition filed as I.A. No. 254/2023 in C.C. No. 259/2022 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Palakkad (District Commission for short) by order dated 24.05.2023.  The Revision Petitioner is the petitioner/ proposed 3^rd opposite party in I.A. 254/2023.  The 1^st respondent is the complainant and the 2^nd respondent is the 2^nd opposite party in C.C. No. 259/2022.

          2.  The 2^nd opposite party is the Manager, Customer Care, Mahindra & Mahindra Head Office, Bhosale Marg, Worli in this case.  Notice was served on the 2^nd opposite party.  But they failed to file version within time.  Thereafter on 27/04/2023 this application was filed by the proposed 3^rd additional opposite party.

          3.  The petitioner stated that Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. is a corporate person and they are not impleaded as a party to the dispute.  Notice was received in the name of the “Manager Customer Care” and that too in the name of a legal entity which is not shown.  The petitioner claimed that the mistake is clear and vital enough for the impleadment of the petitioner.

4.  The District Commission found that in the version filed by the 2^nd opposite party they did not raise any contentions regarding non-joinder or mis-joinder of necessary parties in the complaint filed by the complainant.  And also found that all the pages of the version filed by the 2^nd opposite party were counter signed by the proposed 3^rd opposite party Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.  The District Commission dismissed the I.A. on the ground that the only intention of the proposed 3^rd opposite party is to enter into the proceedings and file version for and on behalf of opposite parties since the version filed by the 2^nd opposite party is dismissed by the District Commission.

5.  The District Commission had passed a very detailed order against the petitioner that the intention of the petitioner is to get over the order of the District Commission in rejecting the version filed by the 2^nd opposite party as time barred.  There is no illegality in the order passed by the District Commission and no need to set aside or modify the order passed by the District Commission.  Hence the order in I.A. 254/2023 is confirmed.

          In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. 

         AJITH KUMAR  D.: JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                                        BEENA KUMARY. A         : MEMBER

                                                                        RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER

jb