(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.No. 1 and therefore, the application  moved by the O.P. No. 2 for deletion  was itself not tenable  in law. 

5.         Respondent No. 1- Chairman, Tata Sons Ltd. was duly served but has remained  absent. I have heard Mr. Jachak, learned advocate for the respondent No. 2- Tata Sky at length. During the course of argument, the  petitioner has also drawn my attention  to bunch of documents  filed by  him on record including  copies of various e-mails addressed to the respondent No.2  as well as respondent No. 1. Petitioner has further drawn my attention  also to the copy of complaint  filed  under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. During the course of oral argument  the petitioner  has contended before me that the  respondent No. 1- Tata Sons Ltd. was  necessary party since Tata Sons Ltd.  was holding  majority  shares  in Tata Sky . Mr. Jachak, learned advocate for the O.P.No. 2/respondent No. 2 has strongly rebutted the various contentions advanced  by the Petitioner. Mr. Jachak, learned advocate  has  categorically denied  that  the respondent No. 2 was the sister concern  or that  the respondent No. 1- Tata Sons Ltd. was holding  majority shares.  The learned advocate for the respondent No. 2 has  vehemently contended that  the business of the respondent No. 2 was not  controlled  by the respondent No. 1 at all. On the contrary Tata Sons Ltd was the joint venture between  Tata Groups and 21  Century Fox. Mr. Jachak, learned advocate for the  respondent No. 2 has also  drawn my attention  specifically to the order passed by the learned District Consumer Commission, Nagpur. It is submitted  by the learned advocate for the respondent No. 2 that  there was no error of law or infirmity   in the order passed by the learned District Consumer  Commission, Nagpur  on 23/10/2019. It is well  settled  proposition  of law that the revision  petition  can be entertained  under the  provisions of the Consumer Protection  Act, 1986 only when there is any erroneous  exercise  of  power   by the learned District Consumer Commission which is apparent   on the face of record.  In this back ground I have carefully  gone through  the application  filed by the  respondent No. 2/O.P.No. 2 as well as say and reply given by the  present petitioner/complainant on record. The respondent No. 2 has stated in the application in  para 5 that  the complainant  has not given any specific reason  for  joining the O.P.No. 1 and has also not pointed out any alleged  deficiency in service on the part  of the O.P.No. 1.  On the other hand  the O.P.No. 2 has taken a plea that the complainant /petitioner  has falsely  joined  the O.P. No. 1 as a party though there was  no cause of action  against the O.P.No. 1. On this aspect  also  I have heard the petitioner  and  he has invited my attention  to the  various documents  on record but  none of these documents   show the  involvement of O. P. No. 1 in   providing deficient  services to the complainant.  I have carefully  gone through  the  contents of the complaint  filed by the complainant/ petitioner  under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. If we go through  the copy of the Consumer Complaint  filed by the complainant the same  shows that  the  complainant  has levelled  various  allegations  regarding  deficiency  in service on the part of the  O.P.No. 2- Tata Sky only. However,  the complainant /petitioner has not  made any allegations  of  deficiency  in service against the O.P.No. 1- Tata Sons Ltd.  except  bald  statement  that the O.P.No. 1- Tata Sons Ltd. is holding  company of O.P.No.2 but merely being  holding  company will not  make O.P. No. 1 the necessary  party  to the present   proceedings. The petitioner  has contended that  the learned District Consumer Commission, Nagpur has not appreciated  that the O.P.No. 1 was holding  majority  shares in Tata Sky and was also holding  company.  Mr. Jachak, learned advocate for the  respondent No. 2 has strongly rebutted  this contention  and has submitted that  there were  no  allegations  made  nor any documents  filed on record which could  go to show that  the respondent No. 1 was controlling  the affairs  of the respondent No. 2. At this stage  since the present  petitioner  has challenged  the impugned order dated 23/10/2019 passed by the  learned District Consumer Commission, Nagpur it is  necessary  to turn to the same.  If we go through  the  order dated 23/10/2019 passed by the learned District Consumer Commission, Nagpur, the learned District Consumer Commission, Nagpur has also  specifically  stated  and observed  that  the complainant  has not produced  any  evidence  to show that  complainant  paid  any consideration  to O.P.No. 1 for  availing  services . Further   the learned District Consumer Commission, Nagpur has also observed  in the order that  no specific allegations were  made  by the complainant  against  the O.P.No. 1- Tata  Sons Ltd. I have already referred  the averment made in the  complaint  filed  by the  present  petitioner /complainant  and there is no material  at all to show that  there  was any deficiency  in service  on the part of  the O.P.No. 1- Tata Sons Ltd. or   the present  complainant  had any cause of action  against the  O.P.No. 1. Petitioner was  only  harping  upon the fact that  the O.P. No. 1  was holding company of the O.P.No. 2 but the same  is not at all sufficient  to term as  it necessary  or proper  party to the proceedings.  In the light of this situation I do not see any error of law or  infirmity  in the order passed by the learned District Consumer Commission, Nagpur.

6.         Next contention advanced by the  petitioner  is that the O.P.No. 2 namely- Tata Sky had no right  or  authority  to  appear or filed any  application on behalf  of the O.P.No. 1. Petitioner  has submitted that  the O.P.No. 2 has filed an application  without  attaching  any power   of attorney  from the  O.P.No. 1 authorizing  to  file  such  application. However,  in this  connection the learned advocate  for the O.P. No 2 has drawn my attention  specifically  to Order 1, Rule10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code which  permits  Courts to  strike  out  parties either  upon  or without  the application  of either  party. Needless to mention that  the  Order 1, Rule 10(2) of the  Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 gives power  to strike out party  upon  application  of either  party and same are  applicable to the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As such  this submission  made by the  petitioner  that  no order can be passed  on the application  moved by the respondent No. 2  is completely  devoid of any substance.

7.         On the other hand, the consumer complaint itself  does not show any deficiency in service  on the part of the O.P. No. 1 nor any cause of action against the O.P. No. 1 which  is condition precedent for seeking   the remedy  under provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, Admittedly, all the allegations  and averments  in the complaint are against  the O.P.No. 2- Tata Sky only. Furthermore the  complainant  has also not  pleaded in the complaint  as to how the O.P.No. 1- Tata Sons Ltd.  was  in any way controlling  the affairs  of O.P.No. 2.

8.         In the light of aforesaid  discussions  I must hold that  the petitioner  has  failed  to establish that   there was  any  error  or infirmity   in the  reasoned order  passed by the learned District Consumer Commission, Nagpur  dated 23/10/2019. As such I am unable  to accept the  contentions  advanced  by the petitioner  and so I proceed to pass the following  order.

ORDER

i.          Revision Petition No. RP/19/52 is hereby dismissed.

ii.          Copy of order be furnished to both the parties free of cost.