BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI
BEFORE : Hon’ble Dr. Justice S. TAMILVANAN PRESIDENT
Tmt. P. BAKIYAVATHI MEMBER
R.P.NO.17/2015
(Against order in CMP.No.40/2015 in CC No.10/2015 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North)
DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF MARCH 2017
1. The Manager
Akash Ganga Courier Limited
Shop No.25, 2nd Floor
Electric Market (Kumbhat Complex)
29-30, Rattan Bazaar,
Chennai- 600 003
2. Akash Ganga Courier Limited
Registered Office at
Opp. Railway Station
Loonkaransar District Bikaner
Rajasthan
3. Akash Ganga Courier Limited
Corporate Office at
784-785, B Gupta Road M/s. V. Nandakumar
Faiz Road Chowk Counsel for
Karol Bagh, New Delhi - 5 Petitioners/opposite parties
Vs.
Ravi Heda
M/s. Orange Systems & Solutions
Shop No.3, 2nd Floor M/s. S. Ilamvaludhi
Kalyan Trade Centre Counsel for
No.16 & 17, Chennai – 2 Respondent/Complainant
The Manager
Patel Integrated Logistics Ltd.,
No.21, VGP Murphy Square
Alandur, Chennai- 600 016 Respondent/ Proposed party/4th Opposite party
This Revision Petition is filed praying to set aside the order of the District Forum in CMP.No.40/2015 in CC.No.10/2015 dt.11.5.2015 praying to implead the proposed party, which was dismissed.
This petition coming on before us for hearing finally today. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on bothsides , this commission made the following order in the open court.
Dr. JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN, PRESIDENT (Open Court)
1. This Revision Petition is filed praying to set aside the order of the District Forum in CMP.No.40/2015 in CC.No.10/2015, which was dismissed.
2. The petition under dispute is filed before the District Forum, Chennai (North), praying for impleading the proposed party as a party to the proceedings, which was dismissed by the District Forum.
3. This Revision Petition came up before this Commission for hearing today. Learned counsel for the Petitioners, as well as 1st Respondent / complainant and the 2nd Respondent / proposed party present. We have heard the counsels appearing on bothsides, and passed the following order, in the open court.
4. The petition under dispute is filed by the Revision Petitioners/ Opposite parties, praying for impleading the 2nd Respondent/ proposed party, as party to the proceedings in CC.No.10/2015 before the District Forum, Chennai (North). The District Forum, after due consideration came to the conclusion that the proposed party, is not a necessary party to the complaint, and thus dismissed the said petition.
5. The learned counsel for the 1st Respondent/ complainant submits that the opposite parties 1 to 3 have no locustandi to file such a petition praying to implead some 3rd party, as a party to the proceedings. Thus prays for dismissal of the Revision Petition.
6. It is a settled proposition of law, that the complainant being the Dominus litis , he only has to decide as against whom he has to file the complaint. If it is an abuse of process of law, or harassment to the concerned party, the said party can approach the Forum for appropriate orders. However one of the opposite parties, or few of the opposite parties, cannot file a petition praying for impleading some third party, in the complaint as the same would not be available for the opposite parties, as per law. Accordingly, the petition filed by the Revision Petitioners/ opposite parties seeking an order to implead third parties is not legally sustainable and hence that was rightly dismissed by the District Forum. On the facts and circumstances, the commission is of the view that the dismissal of the said petition made by the court below is legally sustainable, which cannot be challenged by the Revision Petitioners/ 1 to 3 opposite parties, as per law. Accordingly, the Revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. In the result, the Revision Petition is dismissed. No cost.
P. BAKIYAVATHI S. TAMILVANAN
MEMBER PRESIDENT
INDEX : YES / NO
