M.THANIKACHALAM, J. - (1.) The appellant/1st opposite party, suffered an adverse order, in the hands of the District Forum, in CC.No.618/2006, as per the order dt.5.4.2010, which is challenged in the proposed appeal.
(2.) Originally, a consumer complaint was filed by one Purushothaman. In the name of that person alone, order came to be passed, as per the record on 5.4.2010. It seems the said Purushothaman died on 24.2.2009, as seen from the death certificate produced in the typeset filed before us. The death of the complainant by name Purushothaman, was not reported to the District Forum, and the District Forum proceeded, as if the complainant was alive and passed an order on 5.4.2010 in favour of a dead person. Thereafter it seems, the legal heir of Purushothaman by name Nithyasree claimed the benefits of the decree. At this stage, the 1st opposite party, who suffered an adverse order, filed the appeal including the name of Nithyasree, as the 1st respondent, as if she was the complainant before the District Forum, the fact being she was not the complainant, or not has been impleaded as the legal heir of deceased Purushothaman/ complainant. Therefore, the Registry, questioning the maintainability of the appeal, against the person, who has not obtained an order, who has not been impleaded as the legal heir, placed the paper before this commission for maintainability.
(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend, that the 1st opposite party having suffered an adverse order, is entitled to maintain the appeal against the legal heir of the deceased complainant, and therefore the legal heir of the deceased complainant, by name Nithyashree, should be substituted, or she should be shown as the 1st respondent in the appeal. For that purpose, a CMP was also filed, alongwith appeal, and both the petitions are taken together.;