(Delivered on11/02/2022)

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

1.         Petitioner/complainant  – Sou. Ragini Amrutrao Karekar  has  preferred  the present  revision petition  feeling aggrieved by  the order passed by the  learned District Consumer  Commission , Nagpur in Consumer Complaint No. CC/210/2017 whereby the learned District Consumer Commission, Nagpur   allowed the application filed by the intervener for being added as party in Consumer Complaint.

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

            The petitioner/complainant has  preferred  one  complaint  under  Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the  O.P. Nos. 1&2 for deficiency  in service and also for direction  to  execute the sale deed in favour  of the present  petitioner /applicant  in respect of area admeasuring 4000 Sq. Fts.  of the layout  of Khasra No. 77/1-A and 78/1-A of  Mouza Somalwada by accepting  balance consideration  amount of Rs. 4,50,000/-.  After filing of the consumer complaint the Respondent /O.P.  Nos. 1&2 appeared. During the pendency of the said consumer complaint the respondent No. 3/intervener – Mr. Shriram Krishnarao Tapase has filed an application for addition of party on the ground that he was the necessary party to the consumer complaint.  Accordingly, after hearing   the learned advocate for the respondent No. 3/intervener - Mr. Shriram Tapase, the application came to be allowed by the District Consumer Commission, Nagpur by  passing the  impugned order dated 24/10/2018, which is challenged in the present  revision  petition.

3.         After filing of the revision petition due notice was issued to the respondent Nos. 1&2 as well as respondent No. 3- Mr. Shriram Tapase and they have duly appeared.  We have also heard Mr. Mr. A.S. Joshi, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner/complainant who is aggrieved by the said order dated 24/10/2018. Similarly we have also heard Mr. S.P. Kshirsagar,  learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 1&2  and Mr. Amol Mardikar, learned advocate  for the  respondent No. 3.

4.         At the outset Mr. A.S. Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioner/complainant has submitted before us that the learned District Consumer Commission, Nagpur has not at all applied its mind to the facts on record and has passed   impugned order  which was erroneous  in nature. According to Mr. A.S. Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioner/complainant   the District Consumer Commission, Nagpur has not at all taken into consideration  the fact that  the dispute between the present  petitioner/ complainant  and respondent Nos. 1&2/O.P.Nos. 1&2 was regarding deficiency in service and respondent No. 3 had absolutely no role to play and was also not an interested party in the said dispute. In this regard Mr. A.S. Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioner/ complainant  has drawn our attention  to the application filed by the respondent No. 3- Mr. Shriram Tapase who has claimed  in his application  that  his brother  namely Lalit Tapase  was working  with the  husband  of the  present  petitioner  in the same  office and  was given a cheque of Rs. 20,000/- for making payment  to the society  towards membership. Mr. A.S. Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioner/complainant  has vehemently  submitted  that  all the allegations  and averments   made in the  application  were  related to the brother  of  the respondent No. 3 namely  Lalit Tapase and not at all the present  respondent No. 3 who had  no role at all but  the  learned District Consumer Commission, Nagpur  has not  considered this aspect  and  has drawn conclusion that  the present  respondent Nos. 3 who was intervener  was an interested  party  and therefore,  has passed the impugned order  by adding  him  as a party.

5.         We have also heard Mr. S.P. Kshirsagar, learned advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 1&2 namely Empress Mill Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.  against which  the present  petitioner  has alleged deficiency  in service. However, the respondent Nos. 1&2 have taken a stand that they being the office bearers of Empress Mill Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.   were not  at all concerned  with  the interested  dispute  between  the present  petitioner  and  Lalit Tapase. If we go through the application filed by the respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 has alleged that  an amount of Rs. 20,000/- was paid by his brother  vide cheque  No. 956236, dated 25/01/1999 and cheque was given  in the  name of  Society  by his brother  namely – Lalit Tapase  and same was realized  by the  society  by  depositing  the same  in  the account of society.  Respondent No. 3 has made allegation that it was incorrect on the part of the respondent Nos. 1&2 to accept any cheque thereafter in the name of the present petitioner /complainant.  If we go through the application filed by the intervener, all the allegations set out in the application were relating to brother of the respondent No. 3 namely Mr.  Lalit Tapase and not the present respondent No. 3- Mr. Shriram Tapase. It seems that  the learned District Consumer Commission, Nagpur  has not taken  this aspect  into consideration  that  the present  respondent No. 3 had no connection  and  in fact  his brother  namely  Mr. Lalit Tapase  has taken some part in the  transaction.  It is not  necessary  or proper  for  us to go into  the allegations made in the  complaint  as well as  the application  which shall be decided  by the learned District Consumer Commission, Nagpur  on merits. It  needless to mention  that  the scope  of  revision  petition  is very  limited  and  restricted.  However,  it is clear that  the learned District Consumer Commission, Nagpur  has not taken  into  consideration  that the respondent Nos. 3 had no role  to play  and  cannot be  termed  as a party interested in the matter.  Accordingly, we feel that  the order passed by the  learned District Consumer Commission, Nagpur dated 24/10/2018 will have to be set aside  and  application filed by the respondent No. 3- Mr. Shriram Tapase have being added  as  a party   will have to be  rejected .   As such we proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

1. Revision Petition No. RP/18/56 is hereby allowed and order dated 24/10/2018 passed by the learned District Consumer Commission, Nagpur is hereby set aside.
2. Application filed by the respondent No. 3 in Consumer Complaint No. CC/210/2017  hereby stands       rejected.
3. Copy of order be furnished to both the parties free of cost.