CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and Commissions(2004) 04 NCDRC CK 0105

SANJIV MOITRA vs G.D. MEGHANI

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 7 April 2004 · Citation: 2004 3 CPJ 618

HON’BLE JUDGES
V.K.Agrawal , R.S.Awasthis J.
RESULT
Appeal dismissed

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 331 words
1.

THIS appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 5.11.1999 in Complaint No. 167/98 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur (hereinafter called the ''District Forum'' for short) dismissing the complaint of the complainant/appellant.

2.

THE complainant/appellant was aggrieved by the alleged wrong report of blood group of his wife Geetu Moitra. THE complaint was resisted by the respondent. The District Forum in the impugned order observed that the appellant is not a consumer. It was also held that there is no material to hold that the report about the blood group of Geetu Moitra was wrong. The complaint was accordingly dismissed.

After hearing both the Counsels, we are of the opinion that no interference in the impugned order is called for. No reason whatsoever has been assigned as to why Geetu Moitra herself did not file the complaint. In fact, it is Geetu Moitra who should have filed the complaint as her blood group was allegedly tested by the respondent. There was no justification for the husband of Geetu Moitra to have filed the complaint. A belated application under Order 1 Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code has been filed in this appeal on behalf of Geetu Moitra for her impleadment as appellant No. 2. However, if the application is allowed, it would mean that Geetu Moitra is permitted to bring the complaint at such a belated stage, though the complaint is hopelessly time-barred. Hence the application is rejected.

3.

THERE is also no satisfactory material to hold that the blood of appellant''s wife was tested by the respondent. THERE is also no material to establish that the subsequent reports produced by the appellant which are contradictory to the report of the respondent, were also regarding the blood of Geetu Moitra. In the circumstances the District Forum was justified in dismissing the complaint. This appeal has no substance and is accordingly dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own cost. Appeal dismissed.