R.R. MANOHAR vs COX And KINGS (INDIA) LTD.

THIS revision is directed against the order passed by the District Forum, Chennai (South) in C.M.P. No. 243/2002 in O.P. No. 459/2001. O.P. No. 459/2001 is filed by the complainants against M/s. Cox & Kings (India) Ltd., Chennai as the 1st opposite party and M/s. Air India Ltd., Chennai, as the 2nd opposite party. The complaint relates to deficiency in service, in that the 1st opposite party who is a tourist operator and is a booking agent for Airlines, were engaged by the complainant for arranging a pleasure trip to places of interest in Singapore and in that regard the opposite parties are guilty of deficiency in service. The 1st opposite party filed version raising various contentions, specifically absence of territorial jurisdiction. They have also disputed the complainant''s contention regarding the allegation of deficiency in service. It is not necessary for the purpose of this case to consider the version of the 2nd opposite party in the context of the Revision Petition. While so, the 1st opposite party viz., M/s. Cox & Kings (India) Limited, Teynampet, Chennai filed a petition to implead M/s. Cox & Kings (India) Limited having its office at Grindlays Bank Building, 270/272, Dr. D.N. Road, Mumbai - 400001 as an opposite party. THIS application was allowed by the Lower Forum. Aggrieved by the same, the present Revision has been filed. It is really strange that a person who is already party to the complaint should file such an application and that such an application should be allowed by the Lower Forum. In their version the opposite party have not stated anything about M/s. Cox & Kings (India) Limited, Teynampet, Chennai, being an unnecessary party or as nothing to do with the transaction. On the other hand, they have entered appearance and have filed their version. They have stated that the complainant had booked through the branch office of the company at Chennai. Therefore, it is admitted that the complainants booked only through the 1st opposite party as arrayed now. It is also admitted in the version that the proposed party is but the registered office of the 1st opposite party. Therefore, it is not a different legal entity or a different party, but it is only the same party. While the 1st opposite party is the branch, the proposed party is said to be the main office. What has been impleaded in the complaint is only M/s. Cox & Kings (India) Limited which is admitted to be the correct name of the company and it is admitted that it is a registered company. Therefore, it is futile to contend that M/s. Cox & Kings (India) Limited having its registered office at Mumbai alone can represent or be a proper party. When it is admitted that it is the 1st opposite party M/s. Cox & Kings (India) Limited, Chennai who were approached by the complainants and who booked the tour programme and when admittedly the cause of action has arisen in Chennai, there was very justification for the complainants to only implead them as party. If the company has different branches or Registered Office in one place and Corporate office or Central Office at another place, it is not necessary for the complainant to implead all of them, because, they are part of the same company and part of the same legal entity and are one the same person in the eye of law. If tomorrow the 1st opposite party says that its Registered Office is at Bombay and the Central Office is at Delhi, is it necessary that the complainant should implead them all? Definitely not. There is no question of impleading of any new party here. For, the party on record is M/s. Cox & Kings (India) Limited and they are very much a party on record and if at all they are part and parcel of M/s. Cox & Kings (India) Limited, being a branch thereof and thus a legal limb of the registered office and is therefore entitled to represent the company. It is not necessary that the registered office should also be brought into the array. It would amount to only duplication. The 1st opposite party is as much a legal entity as its registered office. Even otherwise they are to be deemed as agents. They do not have a different or conflicting stand. Therefore, the complainants have correctly impleaded the 1st opposite party and the order passed by the Lower Forum directing the registered office of the 1st opposite party at Mumbai to be impleaded as a party, is definitely an erroneous one. It is not known how the Lower Forum concludes that the 1st opposite party situated in Chennai is not a legal entity. Just because they have the registered office at Mumbai, it does not cease to be a part of the said company nor ceases to represent the said company. Therefore, the very approach and reasoning advanced by the Lower Forum is thoroughly erroneous. The Lower Forum has stated that the opposite parties have not stated why they should not be added as an opposite party to the complaint. That is, putting the cart before the horse. Therefore, in such circumstances, the order passed by the Lower Forum is definitely wrong. In fact, we find that the 2nd opposite party M/s. Air India Limited has been impleaded as the 2nd opposite party whereas M/s. Air India Limited have their registered office either at Mumbai or Delhi. They have not raised such an untenable contention as done by the 1st opposite party. In the circumstances, there is absolutely an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction by the Lower Forum is allowing the application.

IN the result, this revision is allowed. The order passed by the Lower Forum in CMP No. 243/2002 in O.P. No. 459/2001 will stand set aside with costs. Cost Rs. 250/-. Revision allowed.