C.S. Menon vs V.V. KANNIAH

THIS is a Revision Petition directed against the Order of 1994, 24th September, 1993 of the State Commission, Tamil Nadu in Appeal No. 239 of 1993 on its file. The State Commission had confirmed the order of the District Forum directing the Revision Petitioner to pay Rs. 5,000/- with interest at 12 per cent per annum from 13.6.1989 till the date of payment with compensation of Rs. 2,000/- and costs of Rs. 250/-.

THE Revision Petitioner has challenged the order of the State Commission on the ground that the State Commission has exercised jurisdiction with material irregularity inasmuch as the Revision Petitioner has nothing to do with the said transaction. The relevant facts of this case are briefly as below:- According to the Respondent-Complainant he had deposited a sum of Rs. 3,250/- on 13th June, 1986 and he was issued a corporate bond dated 13th June, 1986 signed by the Respondents No. 3 & 3 S/Shri B. Rajagopal and P.C. Verghese, in the Revision Petition and Opposite Parties 1 & 3 in the complaint petition. According to the Respondent-Complainant, the repayment of Rs. 5,000/- on 13.6.1989 was guaranteed but no payment was made and hence the claim for the refund of the amount with compensation.

According to the District Forum and the State Commission the Opposite Parties remained absent before the District Forum and were set ex-parte. Therefore, the District Forum accepted the affidavit of the Complainant as proof of his allegations and passed the order against the Opposite Parties including Opposite Party No. 2 in the complaint and the Revision Petitioner herein.

THE Revision Petitioner has attacked the order of the State Commission on the following grounds in his revision petition as well as through his Counsel Shri Muralidhar during the hearing :- (1) Though the Complainant based his claim a corporate bond, the Corporation or the Company Dhanalakshmi Consolidates Industries Ltd., itself was not arrayed as a party to the complaint. THE corporate bond was signed by the second and third Respondents, O.P. No. 1 & 3, Shri B.Rajagopal (Managing Director, Dhanalakshmi Consolidates Industries) and Shri P.C. Verghese. (2) THE Revision Petitioner who was second Opposite Party before the District Forum had nothing to do with the said transaction. In Revision Petition he has represented that in his appeal before the State Commission he had submitted "he was in no way involved in the present transaction arising between the complain- ant and respondent Nos. 2 & 3", that there was no nexus between the second Opposite Party (the Revision Petitioner-Shri C.S. Menon) with the complaint, that there was no whisper at all about any act/role of the second Opposite Party regarding issue of the corporate bond to the complainant and therefore the finding of the District Consumer Forum that the Opposite Parties including the Revision Petitioner pay compensation to the Complainant was per- verse and perse illegal. He was not a signatory or a party to the corporate bond and that he had falsely been implicated in the case. The averments made by the revision petitioner have remained uncontested. If the deposits were made with a Limited Company M/s. Dhanalakshmi Consolidates Industries Ltd. and it had issued a corporate bond for the deposit made with it, it was essential to implead the Company in the complaint. The complaint petition and the subsequent proceedings also do not disclose how the Revision Petitioner-Shri C.S. Menon is personally concerned with the transaction. It is unfortunate that the State Commission had overlooked these grounds on which he had attacked the order of the District Forum in appeal before the State Commission. We do find that there is merit in the contentions of the Revision Petitioner and there has been exercise of jurisdiction with material irregularity inasmuch as the order of the State Commission has awarded reliefs against the revision petitioner also and this cannot be sustained. We therefore, allow the revision petition and set aside the orders of the District Forum and the State Commission in so far as they are against the Revision Petitioner-Shri C.S. Menon. So far as Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and Opposite Par- ties Nos. 1 & 3 before the District Forum (S/Sh. B. Rajagopal and Shri P.C. Verghese) are concerned the orders of the lower Forums will remain unaffected. Order accordingly.