AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS Revision Petition is filed by the opposite parties against the order passed by the District Forum, Thiruvananthapuram, in I.A. No. 143 / 96 in O-P. No. 393/96.
THE complainant filed an application for impleading M/s. Geosat Tours and Travels, Trivandrum, and the Manager, Air India, Vellayambalam, as additional opposite parties 3 and 4. THE opposite parties objected to the petition saying that they are not necessary parties since there is no dispute as to the purchase of the ticket from Geosat Tours and Travels and further, Air India is already impleaded in this case. It is also stated that no allegation of any deficiency in their service is raised and so there is no necessity to implead them as additional opposite parties. THE District Forum did not allow the request to implead the Geosat Tours and Travels saying that there is no dispute as to the purchase of the ticket by the complainant from them. However the District Forum allowed the petitioner to implead the Manager, Air India, Vellayambalam, who is sought to be impleaded as an additional 4th opposite party. It is stated he has confirmed and reconfirmed journey and so he has to be impleaded as additional 4th opposite party. THE District Forum held that in the nature of the contention in the version of the opposite parties 1 and 2 the Manager, Air India, Trivandrum, is a necessary party to the complaint. Of course it was argued by Counsel for opposite parties that in the version it is contended that District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint since the cause of action arose in Bombay and also since the opposite parties are residing in Bombay and the complainant filed the petition to implead the additional opposite parties only to circumvent this contention. It is also contended that considerable prejudice would be caused to the opposite parties if the additional opposite parties are impleaded. However the District Forum took the view in the nature of the contentions raised, the Manager, Air India, Trivandrum, is a necessary party to the complaint. In this revision petition also learned Counsel raised the same contention that in the version it is alleged that cause of action arose in Bombay only and both the opposite parties are also residing in Bombay and the District Forum, Trivandrum, has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and that the application for impleadment was made in order to circumvent this contention.
It has been held time and again that the Court must be liberal in the matter of adding parties to the suit so as to avoid multiplicity of litigations. Further, the Amendment Act 50 of 1993 enables the consumer to file a complaint at any place where the opposite party has a branch. In the circumstances we are not impressed with the contention that present attempt to implead 4th additional respondent is to circumvent objection relating to territorial jurisdiction. We therefore do not find any error in the order passed by the District Forum. We accordingly dismiss the Revision Petition. Revision Petition dismissed.