Per Hon’ble Mr.Justice R.C.Chavan, President
This revision is directed against the order below Exhibit 68 passed by the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune in complaint no.CC/05/335. Exhibit 68 was an application for amendment to the written version of the applicant/opponent. Original complainant was Mr.Vishwas Bhagoji Gaikwad, who died during the pendency of the complaint and his legal representatives were brought on record in order to prosecute the complaint. By the amendment application, the present applicant/opponent in the complaint sought to say that since the complaint was based on agreement with Mr.Vishwas Bhagoji Gaikwad, who expired, the agreement did not exist after his demise and his legal representatives were not entitled to seek enforcement of that agreement. It was submitted that since there was no relationship of ‘consumer’ and ‘supplier of service’, between even the deceased complainant and the opponent the complaint was not tenable. It was specifically mentioned in the application that the amendment sought was based on legal provisions and only technical in nature but necessary for decision on merits and, therefore, may be allowed.
After considering reply of the complainant’s L.Rs, the forum, by its impugned order observed amongst other things that the L.Rs of the deceased were brought on record in the year 2008 and amendment was sought on 02/05/2012. It was also mentioned that only pleas on law were sought to be raised and they could even be raised at the time of argument. Forum therefore observed that since only legal pleas were sought to be raised, except prolonging hearing of the matter, no other purpose was noticed in the application. Forum therefore rejected the application.
We have heard the Ld.counsel for the applicant. First there is no reason as to why the applicant woke up four years after L.Rs were brought on record. Secondly, forum has not foreclosed the arguments of the applicant and the issues raised, and, has categorically stated that these questions could be raised at the time of final arguments and we believe that the forum would hear the applicant even on the legal pleas sought to be raised when the arguments in the complaint are finally heard by the forum. Therefore, there is absolutely no merit in this revision petition, it is consequently dismissed.
Pronounced on 19th September, 2013.
