(Delivered on 26 /10/2021)

PER SHRI A. Z. KHWAJA, HON’BLE PRESIDING MEMBER.

1.         Petitioner /complainant – Mr. Aarmin F. Banaji,  has preferred the present  revision petition  feeling aggrieved by the order dated 23/10/2019 passed by the  learned District Consumer  Commission , Nagpur in Consumer Complaint No. CC/19/340 by which  the application  filed by the O.P. No. 2 for deletion  of the name of the O.P. No. 1 came to be allowed.

2.         Short facts leading  to filing  of the the revision petition may be stated  briefly as under,

            Complainant claims to be  a Consumer of O.P.No. 2- Tata Sky and has made several allegations  regarding  deficiency in service  by O.P.No. 2- Tata Sky and on the basis of the same has filed  the Consumer Complaint  against the  O.P. Nos. 1&2 under Section 12 of the Consumer  Protection Act, 1986 before the learned District Consumer Commission, Nagpur.

3.         During the pendency of the  Consumer Complaint filed by the complainant /petitioner  the O.P.No. 2- M.D. Tata  Sky appeared in response  to summons and thereafter filed an application  for deletion  of the name of the O.P.No. 1 namely Tata Sons Ltd.  on various  grounds and application filed by the O.P.No. 2- Tata Sky came to be allowed and name of the O.P.No. 1 namely Tata Sons came to be deleted as per order dated 23/10/2019, passed by the learned District Consumer Commission, Nagpur. Against this  impugned  order passed by the learned District Consumer Commission, Nagpur dated 23/10/2019 present petitioner  has come up in revision .

4.         I have heard  petitioner-Mr. Aarmin F. Banaji in person as well as  Mr. Jachak, learned advocate for the respondent No. 2. It is argued  by the present  petitioner  that the present  petitioner  was the Consumer  of  O.P. No. 2-Tata Sky  Unit  and  O.P. No. 1 namely  Chairman, Tata Sons Ltd. was a necessary  party in the Consumer  Complaint  and  therefore, he had came to be  added as a party but despite  this fact the learned District Consumer Commission, Nagpur has  deleted the name of the O.P. No. 1- Tata Sons Ltd. on the ground  that  the O.P.No. 1- Tata Sons Ltd. was not a necessary party.  Petitioner  has raised  several  contentions  during the course of argument  but I would  be dealing with  main contention  advanced by the petitioner.  Foremost  contention raised  by the  petitioner   during  oral submissions and also in the notes of argument  is that  the O.P.No. 1- Tata Sons Ltd. was a necessary party as Tata Sons Ltd.  was the holding  company of O.P.No. 2 namely Tata Sky but this fact has not been duly considered  at all by the learned District Consumer Commission, Nagpur. Petitioner has argued  before me that  the  learned District Consumer Commission, Nagpur has not taken  in to consideration  the fact that  the  learned  advocate  for the O.P.No. 2- Tata Sky also had no authority   or locus standi  to file an application  for deletion  of the name of the O.P.No. 1- Tata Sons Ltd. but despite this fact the learned  advocate for the O.P.No. 2- Tata Sky had moved an application on behalf of the O.P.No. 2 for deletion  of name of  the O.P. No. 1 and same has also come to be allowed. The petitioner  has submitted that  the O.P.No. 2 was  not having   any power  of attorney for O.P.N