STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA REVISION PETITION NO. SC/32/RP/99/2023 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KANJIRAPPILLY AMUSEMENT PARK AND HOTELS PVT LTD PRESENT ADDRESS - DREAM WORLD KANJIRAPPILLY CHALAKKUDY 680721 ,KERALA.

.......Petitioner(s)

Versus ANOOKA K A PRESENT ADDRESS - KALARIKKAL HOUSE PERINJANAM VILLAGE DESOM P O PERINJANAM THRISSUR 680686 ,KERALA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR , PRESIDENT FOR THE PETITIONER:

NEMO FOR THE RESPONDENT:

NEMO DATED: 02/07/2025

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REVISION PETTITION No.99/2023 ORDER DATED: 02.07.2025 (Against the order in I.A.No.601/2022 in C.C.No.12/2021 on the files of DCDRC, Thrissur)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA : PRESIDENT KUMAR SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER REVISION PETITIONER:

The Managing Director, Kanjirappally Amusement Park and Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Dream World, Kanjirappally, Chalakkudy – 680 721 (by Adv. Mridul John Mathew, Adv. N.G. Mahesh and Adv. Sheeba Sivadasan)

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Anooka K.A., Kalarikkal House, Perinjanam Village, Desom P.O., Perinjanam, Thrissur – 680 686

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, the question to be decided is as to whether the complainant can be compelled to implead any person, who is not a party in the complaint, against the wishes of the complainant.

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurmit Singh Bhatia v. Kiran Kant Robinson and Others (2019 KHC 6689 : AIR 2019 SC 3577) plaintiff is the dominus litis and hence the plaintiff cannot be forced to add parties against whom he does not want to fight unless there is a compulsion of the rule of law.

8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sudhamayee Pattnaik and Others v. Bibhu Prasad Sahoo and Others (2022 KHС 6960: AIR 2022 SC 4304) held that the plaintiffs are the dominus litis and hence unless the Court suo motu directs to join any other person not party to the suit for effective decree and /or for proper adjudication as per O.1 R.10 CPC, nobody can be permitted to be impleaded as defendants against the wish of the plaintiffs unless there is a compulsion of the rule of law.

9. The above settled position makes it clear that the plaintiff, being the dominus litis, the plaintiff cannot be forced to add parties against the wishes of the plaintiff. In the case on hand, the complainant is the dominus litis or the master of the complaint. Therefore, the above settled principle can be made applicable to the case on hand as well.

10. In this case, the opposite party filed I.A.No.601/2022 praying for nd impleading the insurer of the opposite party as additional 2 opposite party. The said application was vehemently opposed by the complainant. Since the complainant is dominus litis, the complainant cannot be compelled to add parties, against whom he does not want to fight, unless it is compulsion of rule of law. Since the complainant vehemently opposed the application for impleading the additional opposite party in the complaint, the District Commission was perfect