The court emphasized the necessity to add legal representatives to ensure effective adjudication, prioritizing substantial justice over procedural technicalities.

ORDER

PER: - JUSTICE GAUTAM CHOURDIYA, PRESIDENT

This appeal is filed under section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short) against order dated 19.12.2024 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (C.G.) (hereinafter called “District Commission” for short) in complaint case No.CC/374/14, whereby I.A. No. 04, an application filed under Rule 10 of C.P.C praying to implead the legal representative of the deceased complainant as a party to the case was rejected and as a result since the complainant is dead and his legal representative is not impleaded in the complaint, the same was dismissed holding that it has no sustainability.

2. Final arguments heard. Record perused.

3. The challenge in this appeal to the impugned order is mainly on the ground that as per provisions under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) the court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party and on such terms, as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined be struck out and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined be added, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit.

4. As the complaint has been dismissed without considering the same on its merits holding that since the complainant is dead and his legal representative is not impleaded in the complaint and also the fact that the legal representative of deceased complainant is necessary to be added as her presence before the District Commission is necessary to enable it effectually and completely to adjudicate upon the matter, the I.A. No.04, application under order 1 rule 10 of CPC ought to have been allowed with direction to add the appellant herein as complainant, being legal representative of the deceased complainant, but learned District Commission has committed an error in rejecting the said application and thereafter in dismissing the complaint. Learned counsel for the appellant has advanced his arguments accordingly.

5. Whereas learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the complainant died on 07.09.2018 and after one year and 17 days of his death, an application under order 22 rule 3 read with Section 151 of CPC was filed earlier on 24.09.2019, which was dismissed by the learned District Commission vide order dated 12.10.2023 and that order was never challenged, hence is binding upon the appellant. He has also argued that since similar application with same prayer, filed under Order 22 Rule 3 of CPC was rejected earlier, the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC was not maintainable being not in accordance with law. He has prayed that this appeal be dismissed with cost.

6. We have considered the above arguments advanced by learned counsels for the parties. Vide order dated 12.10.2023, learned District Commission rejected the I.A. No.3, an application filed under order 22 rule 3 of CPC read with Section 151 of CPC holding that the complainant died on 07.09.2018 and the information of which is being given now on 24.09.2019, since the complainant died one year before the submission of the application, but according to the law, the legal heirs have to be included in the case within 90 days or an application for condonation of delay should also be submitted stating the reason for the delay, but the same has not been done hence the appl