STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                   UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW

                                      APPEAL NO. 449 OF 2016

           (Against the Order dated 06-02-2016 in Complaint Case No.

            741/2012 of the District Consumer Forum, Kanpur Nagar)

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited      

                                                                                                  ...Appellant

                                                     Vs.

Rishu Gupta and another   

                                                                                             ...Respondent

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. C B SRIVASTAVA, PRESIDING MEMBER

HON’BLE MR. JUGUL KISHORE, MEMBER

For the Appellant       :   Sri Rajendra Kumar Yadav,, Advocate.

For the Respondent     :            -

Dated : 14-03-2016

                                                  JUDGMENT

          MR. C B SRIVASTAVA, PRESIDING MEMBER(ORAL)

          The appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order dated 06-02-2016 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Kanpur Nagar in the application moved by of Sri Pankaj Shukla, Law Officer, Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited in Complaint Case No. 741/2012 (Rishu Gupta V/s National Insurance Company Limited) for impleadment as necessary party, wherein the application of the appellant has been dismissed on the ground that there is no force in the application.

          We have heard Sri Rajendra Kumar Yadav, learned Counsel for the appellant at the time of admission of this appeal and perused the entire record.

          It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellant bank is the actual owner of the vehicle and have all powers vested in the appellant bank for recovery of outstanding amount and the bank has also power to securitize the loan and auction the vehicle or do whatsoever which is in the interest of the appellant bank. It is further pleaded by the learned Counsel that the learned District Consumer Forum has committed error in not considering the necessity for arraying the appellant as party in the aforesaid complaint.

          After hearing of the learned Counsel for the appellant and perusing the record, we find that Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited is the financier and the Law Officer Sri Pankaj Shukla has moved the application before the District

:2:

Consumer Forum for impleadment as necessary party in his own name instead of Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited. It is not disputed that the Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited is the financier and, after hearing of the learned Counsel for the appellant, we come to this conclusion that there is force in the argument of the appellant and the impugned order is liable to be modified to this extent that instead of Law Officer Sri Pankaj Shukla, the Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited shall be impleaded as the party in the concerned complaint case.

        ORDER

          The appeal is hereby disposed of accordingly.

Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules.

                                                                                    ( C B SRIVASTAVA )

                                                                                   PRESIDING MEMBER

                                                                                              ( JUGUL KISHORE )

                                                                                                      MEMBER

pnt