NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES RERESSAL COMMISSION
M.A. No. 296 OF 2012
(for impleadment of parties)
ORIGINAL PETITION NO. 269 OF 1999
Dharampal Ji,M.D.H. & Ors. … Opposite Parties
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER
HON’BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER
For the Complainant : Mr. Peeyoosh Kalra, Advocate with
Mr. Ashok, Advocate
For the Opp. Parties : Mr. D. K. Mehta, Advocate
Pronounced on 8th August, 2012
JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER
1. This order shall decide the application moved by the complainants under Section 151 CPC and analogus to the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleadment of a party to the complaint. The complainants are the parents of Shri‘Nitin Arora’ a student of Ninth class, who used to study in ‘Mahashya Chuni Lal Saraswati Bal Mandir, Senior Secondary School, L-Block, Hari Nagar, New Delhi’. He went with the school teachers and drowned in the Saryu river while taking a bath.
2. The complainant filed this complaint as per legal advice against the Chairman of the School alongwith Principal, teacher, clerk and two P.G.T., who were the employees of the school. It is contended that due to inadvertence, the school was not impleaded as a party to the present complaint. It is stated that the school be impleaded as one of the respondents.
3. This application was filed on 7.5.2012 whereas the complaint was filed in the year 1999.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that there is an inordinate delay in moving this application. He also pointed out that it was brought to the notice of the complainant that school was a necessary party as per averments made in the written statement. He contended that under these circumstances, the application should be dismissed. He also pointed out that this is harassment to the respondents who have already been impleaded and have suffered the agony of this case for the last 14 years.
5. All these arguments carry no conviction. The paramount duty casts upon this court is to impart justice. The crux of the matter for the court is to ferret out the truth. There is indeed some delay in moving this application but the same can be ignored where the question of justice is concerned. It is well said that justice is not to be taken by storm, she is to be wooed by short advances
6. In Andhra Bank vs. ABN Amro Bank N.V. AIR 2007 SC 2511, it was held that delay is no ground for refusal of prayer for amendment of written statement. Only question to be considered by court is whether such amendment would be necessary for decision of the real controversy between the parties in suit and here the court cannot go into question of merit of amendment.
7. It is well settled that when the amendment sought for, would enable the court to pinpointedly consider the real dispute between the parties and thereby help to render a decision more satisfactorily, it ought to be allowed. (Ramchandra Sakharam Mahajan v.Damodar Trimbak Tanksale 2007(6) SCC 737).
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also cited two authorities reported in Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. Vs. K. K. Modi &Ors. AIR 2006 SC 1647 and Harcharan Vs. State of Haryana 1982(3) SCC 408.
9. Keeping in view, all the facts and circumstances, we allow the application for amendment/impleadment. There is sufficient delay in filing this application but taking into consideration the fact that the complainants are the unfortunate parents of a child, who died at a very young age, we do not propose to impose any costs. Amended complaint be filed and school be summoned for 24.9.2012.
School is directed to file its written statement on the date fixed.
(J.M. MALIK, J.)