STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KARNATAKA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/29/A/492/2015 Royal Sundaram alliance Insurance co-ltd PRESENT ADDRESS - No.186/7, ground floor, Ragahvendra Complex, Wilson Garden Hosur main road,Bangalore. Rep by wise President corporate office Chennai-560002. ,KARNATAKA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus Dharmlingam.

PRESENT ADDRESS - S/o. A. Ranganath, R/at. Hirehalli Industrial aera Urdigere Hubli, Tumkur TQ Tumkur District. ,KARNATAKA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. RAVISHANKAR , JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. SMT.SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

M.M.R (Advocate)

FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Basavaraj (Advocate)

DATED: 29/07/2025

ORDER

16/07/2025 ORDER ON ADMISSION BY SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1. The Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2 in complaint No.236/2024 has preferred this Revision Petition against the order dated 18-12-2024 passed by the Dakshina Kannada District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mangalore.

2. The learned Advocate for Revision petitioner submits that on 10.10.2024 application Under Order I Rule 10 of CPC has been filed by the complainant for impleading this Revision Petitioner as the necessary party. The District Commission without providing an opportunity to file objections or issuance of the notice on the application had allowed the same and impleaded this Revision Petitioner as a necessary party. There afterwards, after impleadment notice was issued and called upon to file version on the main complaint. This Revision petitioner appeared on 30.11.2024 and sought time to file objections along with the version. He is only an employee of the Opposite Party No.2 Company. He is not at all a necessary party to the allegations made by the complainant. The application for impleadment was allowed without hearing from my side and subsequently the version was also not accepted by this Revision petitioner. Hence, prays to permit him to file objections to the IA along with version to the main complaint.

3. Heard on admission.

4. Perused the certified copy of the order sheet dated 10.10.2024. It was noticed that the complainant had filed an application Under Order I Rule 10 of CPC to implead this Revision Petitioner as necessary party. After accepting the said application, the District Commission ought to issue notice to the proposed Opposite Party to file objections on the application filed by complainant to see whether he is a necessary party or not. Without providing such an opportunity, on the same day the application was allowed and impleaded this Revision Petitioner as necessary party. The impleadment made by the District Commission is erroneous and against to the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure and Consumer Protection Act. The District Commission has not applied judicious mind while allowing the application. Subsequently, notice was issued upon the main complaint and offered for filing version. The process which adopted by the District Commission is not acceptable. Hence, we direct the District Commission to hear on the application filed by the complainant for impleadment of this Revision Petitioner. After receiving the objections on the application, if the District Commission found that this Revision Petitioner is the necessary party then only the application has to be allowed and a reasonable time to be provided to file version on the main petition. Accordingly, a direction is given to the District Commission to hear on the application filed by complainant Under Order I Rule 10 of CPC then proceed with the complaint as per provisions of law. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following;

ORDER

The Revision Petition is allowed.

Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as Concerned District Commission.

(SUNITA.C.BAGEWADI) (RAVISHANKAR MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER SJ*

RAVISHANKAR JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT.SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI MEMBER