APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS For the Appellant | : | Ms. Kanika Agnihotri, Advocate Mr. Rudresh Jagdale, Advocate |
PRONOUNCED ON : 16th AUGUST 2017 O R D E R PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER This appeal has been filed under section 19 read with section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 challenging the impugned interim order dated 08.02.2017, passed by the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in FAIA No. 118/2017 in consumer complaint No. 204/2016, by which the State Commission dismissed an application filed by the appellants/opposite parties (OPs), thus, rejecting the plea of the OPs to delete the name of their Chairman/OP-2 and CEO-cum-MD/OP-3 from the array of the parties. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants/OPs at admission stage. The learned counsel stated that consumer complaint No. 204/2016, has been filed before the State Commission by the respondents/complainants against the appellants/OPs, seeking compensation from them for their alleged failure to comply with the specifications in the property purchased by the complainants from the OPs. In the said complaint, the builder company, M/s. India Bulls Real Estate and Wholesale Services Ltd., represented by its authorised signatory had been arrayed as opposite party (OP-1). The Chairman of the said company had also been made OP-2 in the said complaint and their CEO-cum-MD had been made OP-3. An application had been filed before the State Commission by the authorised representative of OP-1 & OP-4 that OP-2 & 3 should be deleted from the list of parties, as individual deficiency in service could not be alleged against the Chairman or any Director of the Company. However, the State Commission vide impugned order had dismissed the application, which was not in accordance with law. The learned counsel argued that in proceedings of civil nature, there was no necessity to implead the Chairman or the CEO-cum-MD as parties in official capacity. Moreover, the OP-2 & 3 were not parties to the contract and hence, it was against law to implead them as parties to the dispute. The learned counsel has drawn attention to an order passed by this Commission in Appeal Execution No. 3/2016 in support of her arguments, saying that the Directors of a company could not be made personally liable. The learned counsel also pointed out that she shall be providing copies of some judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in support of her arguments within two days, but no such judgment was presented by her within the time requested. 3. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. 4. In the impugned order, the State Commission held that the application was not maintainable, because the OP-2 & 3 being the Chairman and the CEO-cum-MD were necessary parties in the case. 5. From the material on record, it is evident that the OP-2 is the Chairman of the Company whereas the OP-3 is the Chief Executive Officer-cum-M.D. of the said company. Evidently, these two persons are holding such important positions in the Company, where they are directly involved with the decision-making process in the company. By virtue of their office, they can directly influence any decision regarding relief to be granted to the complainant, as asked for in the consumer complaint. It is held, therefore, that the State Commission has rightly dismissed the interim application, rejecting the plea of the appellants to delete the name of OP-2 & OP-3 from the array of parties. The impugned order passed by the State Commission is, therefore, upheld and the appeal is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs. |
