SESHAGIRI RAO Vs. VIJAYA KUMARI
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Click here to view full judgement.
P.RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU,PRESIDENT -
(1.) THIS revision
petition is filed questioning an order made in I.A. No. 36/2002 dated
16.5.2003 permitting Mr. K. Seshagiri Rao, the father of the 12th opposite party, late Mr. Kiran Kumar, as a party to the PP. Proceedings
on the ground that he is the legal heir of the 12th opposite party since
deceased. The said application was ordered by an order dated 16.5.2003.
Hence, this revision.
(2.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner objects to the said order on the ground that in the PP, the petitioner namely, K. Seshagiri
Rao cannot be impleaded inasmuch as no property invested in him on the
death of his son.
In fact his son was married and his widow as well as the mother of deceased are Class I heirs and as such impleading the petitioner does not serve any purpose. It is also his submission that Kiran Kumar died pending C.D. and orders were passed in the C.D. without bringing his legal representative and as such the order passed against Kiran Kumar is a non est. These are relevant aspects which were not taken into consideration by the District Forum before passing the impugned order.
(3.) WE have given our careful consideration to the points raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The order passed in respect of
Kiran Kumar without impleading his L.Rs. after his death is void and non
So also, without impleading Class I heirs impleading the father, who is only a Class II heir but without proof of getting any
assets of late Kiran Kumar is also bad.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.