Back
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, PRESIDENT
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KANJIRAPPILLY AMUSEMENT PARK AND HOTELS PVT LTD – Appellant
Versus
ANOOKA K A – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the status of the complainant as dominus litis. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. procedural considerations regarding absence of the respondent. (Para 3) |
| 3. legal principles regarding incorporation of additional parties. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
ORDER
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI.B.SUDHEENDRAKUMAR:PRESIDENT The revision petitioner is the opposite party in C.C.No.12/2021 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur (for short, ‘the District Commission’).
2. The revision petitioner filed I.A.No.601/2022 before the District Commission praying for impleading the United India Insurance Company as the additional opposite party in the complaint. The said application was opposed by the complainant. The District Commission, after considering the rival contentions, dismissed I.A.No.601/2022, against which this revision petition has been filed.
3. Service is complete. However, there is no appearance for the respondent. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perused the records.
5. The District Commission dismissed I.A.No.601/2022 mainly on the reason that there was no privity of contract between the complainant and the insurance company.
6. However,
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
