Order No.26, Dated: 23.06.2017 In the application it is stated by the O.P. No.1 that this O.P. has ultimately received the notice from this Ld. Forum on 18.5.2017, date of appearance was fixed on 5.6.2017, on that date as one of the Ld. Advocate of Burdwan Bar Association was expired, all the works for that date were postponed/adjourned due to condolence of departed soul. So, no steps could be taken in this Ld. Forum due to decision of the Burdwan Bar Association by way of resolution taken on that date and the same was duly communicated to this Ld. Forum. This Ld. Forum has been pleased to fix another date on 23.6.2017 for SR and appearance of the O.P. No.1. Today the O.P. No.1 is appeared by filing Vokalatnama through the Ld. Advocate and also by filing another petition has prayed for adoption of the written version of the O.P. No.2, already filed on its behalf. The O.P. No.1 by filing this petition praying to expunge its name from the cause title of the instant complaint on the ground that this O.P. is neither resident of the place where the consumer complaint has been filed nor carrying business directly at the present place, rather through its Branch Office, headed by its Branch Manager directly controls the Asansol Divisional Office, Asansol. Furthermore, the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. is a vast organization spreading over the whole country. Since, the instant consumer complaint case pertaining to the Burdwan Branch Office which is directly controlled by the Asansol Divisional Office, Asansol, the Higher Authority like Registered Office and the Head Office, represented by its Chairman being the Final Authority has been made a party as the O.P. No.1 unnecessarily who is not directly concerned with the present complaint. Therefore, the name and designation of the Chairman being the O.P. No.1 should be expunged from the cause title of the complaint. The O.P. No.2 being the Branch Manager is contesting in this complaint who is also competent for production the actual and true picture of this complaint. According to the O.P. No.1, if this application is not allowed and the name of the O.P. No.1 is not expunged he will suffer irreparable loss and injury and prayer is made for allowing the application. As the Ld. Counsel is present on behalf of the complainant to contest the petition we take up the same for hearing in presence of the Ld. Counsel for the O.P. No.1 who has advanced argument on this application. It is seen by us that O.P. No.1 has submitted his Vokalatnama as the Branch Office is controlled by the Divisional Office and the Divisional Office is controlled by the Zonal Office. Hence, the O.P. No.1 is not a necessary party in this proceeding and without incorporating the name of the O.P. No.1 this complaint can be adjudicated upon. It is true that the O.P. No.1 is not residing within the territorial jurisdiction where the complaint is initiated. As the Zonal Office has delegated his power to the Divisional Office to proceed with this complaint, hence the O.P. No.1 is not a necessary party in this proceeding. As the prayer of the O.P. No.1 will not change the nature and character of the complaint, hence the prayer made out by the O.P. No.1 is allowed. Hence, it is Ordered that the Miscellaneous Application No.107/2017 is hereby allowed without any cost. Let the copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost |
