Delhi

StateCommission

RP/239/2016

UNITED AIRLINES - Complainant(s)

Versus

VED PRAKASH CHANANA & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

ARJUN MAHAJAN

20 Feb 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Decision: 20.02.2017

 

Revision Petition No.239/2016

(Arising out of the order dated 07.05.2014 passed in Complaint Case No.481/2012 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South West, New Delhi)

 

United Airlines,

2^nd Floor, Tower-C,

Cyber Greens DLF Phase-3,

Gurgaon, Haryana – 122002.

Delhi.                                                                                      

     ….Petitioner.

 

Versus

 

 

1.       Shri Ved Prakash Chanana,

S/o Late Shri R.L. Chanana,

R/o H-6, Masjid Moth,

Greater Kailash Part-II, Near Savitri Cinema,

New Delhi

 

ALSO AT:

Senior Director,

M/s. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd.,

E-2/16, White House, Ansari House,

Darya Ganj, New Delhi -110002.

 

2.       M/s. Lufthansa German Airlines,

          Terminal -3, Indira Gandhi International Airport,

          New Delhi

 

          ALSO AT:

          Department BOMGG,

C/o Lufthansa Cargo, 4^th Floor,

402-404, Rangoli Complex,

Andheri Sahar Road, Andheri,

Mumbai – 400099.

….Respondents

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

 

1.Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

  

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

 

1. This is a revision petition wherein challenge in made to order dated 07.05.2014 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (VII) New Delhi in CC No.481/2012 whereby the petitioner herein has been added as OP No.2 before the Ld. District Forum.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the complaint against the petitioner was time barred complaint and as such the petitioner could not have been added as a party to the complaint case.
3. We have perused  the impugned order, which is as under:

             

     “Arguments on the application of the OP for impleading United Airlines as one of the respondents heard. The application is strongly opposed on behalf of the complainant. It is stated by Ld. counsel for OP that complainant lost the baggage when these were in the custody of the United Airlines from whom, the complainant has offer of interim benefit amounting Rs.200 $. Therefore, we feel that United Airlines is necessary part and its presence would make this Forum to effectually decide disputes amongst parties. For delay, inconvenience to complainant disposing application by Rs.1000/- in respect of while.

 

4. Reading of the impugned order shows that the petitioner has been added as necessary party to the complaint case. However, the objection as to whether complaint is time barred or not has not yet been decided by the Ld. District Forum. The same is a legal objection. It is informed that in the written statement the petitioner/OP No.2 has already taken an objection that the complainant qua petitioner/OP No.2 is time barring.
5. In these circumstances, we dispose this petition with the direction to the Ld. District Forum to consider the objection of limitation raised by petitioner/OP No.2 and decide the same in accordance with law, at the time of deciding the complaint.
6. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirement be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum. 

              File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member

Tri