APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS

PRONOUNCED ON :  16^th 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 argumen