Order no. 2                             Dated-28.10.2022

Ld. Advocate for the complainant is present.

Ld. Advocate for the opposite parties/petitioners is also present.

The Misc. Application filed by the opposite parties/petitioners is taken up for hearing.

Perused. Considered. Heard both sides.

Ld. Advocate for the opposite parties/petitioners submitted that the complainant has wrongly impleaded  the chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India as opposite party no. 1 who resides in Mumbai though he has not rendered any service to the complainant in any manner. Moreover, he cannot be impleaded as a party to the case.

In support of her submission, Ld. Advocate for the opposite parties/petitioners cited a judgment passed on 14.01.2020 by the Hon’ble NCDRC in Kapur Chand Garg vs Life Insurance Corporation of India.

In reply, Ld. Advocate for the complainant raised strong objection against the prayer of the opposite parties/petitioners. He submitted that the complainant has filed the case. The Opposite party no. 1 is a necessary party to this case and in his absence no effective final order/judgment can be passed.

Perused and considered the rival submissions of both the parties and the reference cited by the Ld. Advocate for the opposite parties/petitioners.

In this case, I find that the Hon’ble SCDRC deleted  the name of the chairman of Life Insurance Corporation of India from the cause title of the complaint on a finding that in accordance with the law the chairman is the head of the Board of Directors of the corporation and may not be the Executive head, as the Executive head is generally the Managing Director of the company, otherwise also Senior Manager of the Insurance Company was also made party and there was no need to make Chairman as party in the present case. Moreover, when the grievance is against the Corporation, its Directors are not required to be made a party in the complaint case, though they can be made a party in the execution case.

This finding of SCDRC was affirmed in the above referred case by the NCDRC.

It is apparent on the face of the judgment that the Hon’ble SCDRC observed that the Directors can be made a party in the execution case.

From the observation, it is crystal clear that for proper execution of a final order/judgment,  the director of the Insurance company is a necessary party. So, liberty was given to implead the Director as judgement debtor in execution case.

It is settled principle of law that judgement debtor is the person against whom the final order/judgement has been passed.

I find that opposite party no. 1 is a necessary party to the complaint case and for effective adjudication of the case his presence is necessary.

Therefore, the Misc. Application filed by the opposite parties/petitioners is rejected on contest with cost of Rs. 5,000/-only.

Thus the Misc. Application is disposed of.