TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 1615
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd Floor, G.K., Part-I, New Delhi-1100048 3. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. At Plot No-18, Block-K, 3 CS Cinema, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi - 110024 Also at: ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400051 4. BMW India Pvt. Ltd. At Tower B, 7th Floor, Building No. 8 DLF Cyber City, Phase-II, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002 5. M/s. Deutsche Motoren Pvt. Ltd. At H5/B-1, Mohan Cooperative Indl. Estate, Badarpur, Mathura Road, New Delhi 110044 6. M/s. Bird Automotive Pvt. Ltd. 4 IDC M.G. Road, Opp. Sector 14, Gurgaon - 122001" 3. It is discernible from the plaint that the plaintiff had purchased the car from defendant no. 1, which is a dealer in second-hand cars. Defendant no. 2 is the previous owner of the car purchased by the plaintiff. Defendant no. 3 is the insurance company with which the car was insured, which had repudiated the plaintiff's claim under the insurance policy. Defendant no. 4 is the manufacturer of the car, and defendant no. 5 is its authorised dealer. Defendant no. 6 is the agency which is alleged to have inspected the car prior to its purchase by the plaintiff. 4. The allegation of the plaintiff is that on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the course of argument, learned counsel for plaintiff to substantiate his submissions drawn the attention to the court to the news paper cutting attached with the reply filed by plaintiff to both applications. This court is of view that news paper cutting is not a piece of evidence. Moreover, record speaks that there is no report of the expert to show the cause of fire in the vehicle. In these circumstances, it can not be presumed without any documentary evidence that fire took place due to mechanical/manufacture defect in the vehicle, since, there is no document to this effect. With these observations this court is of view that both applications are liable to be allowed. Hence, defendant no. 4 and 5 are deleted from the array of defendant. Both the applications are disposed off accordingly" 8. While issuing notice in the present petition to respondents no. 1 and 2, this Court, by an order dated 22.01.2018, had stayed further proceedings in the suit. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner (plaintiff in the suit) and respondent no. 1 (defendant no. 4 in the suit). Although respondent no. 2 (defendant no. 5 in the suit) had entered appearance in the proceedings, it was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s No. WBA PP 17090NN33714, Engine No. 74707715. The Defendant No. 4 is manufacturer of the BMW cars and claims itself to be one of the luxurious brands of cars dealing in world's finest Automobiles having a high repute in providing cars with extreme comfort, luxury and safety. The BMW cars are high end costly cars and it is expected that such cars are manufactured with state of art technologies whereby there is no scope of any kind of malfunctioning or even remote technical defect. It is represented by defendant No. 4 that the life of the engine and other technical parts of the car is minimum five years or 200000 kilometers, whichever is early. It is stated that generally the dealers offer one year/two year/three year warranty/guaranty or any extended warranty/guaranty however, even in absence of any specific contract of warranty/guaranty, the said vehicles have inherent capability to run without any hassle or technical defect for the said period of five years/200000 kilometers, as mentioned above. It may be relevant to mention that existence or absence of any specific contract of warranty/guaranty does not make any difference as the liability of the manufacturer to supply a de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....emnify the plaintiff. They casually shifted the liability by stating that the insurer will pay the claim. It is stated that the vehicle suffered such untoward incident only because it had manufacturing defect, else there was no reason that the vehicle would catch fire in normal running condition. The defendants No. 4 & 6 ought to have admitted the liability and indemnified the plaintiff independent of the insurance company. xxxx xxxx xxxx 15. That the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay damages of Rs. 18,30,000/- to the plaintiff plus interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of the aforesaid incident to the plaintiff till payment. The plaintiff hereby restricts the claim of interest from the date of the present suit. Besides, the defendants are also liable to compensate the plaintiff towards the mental agony and harassment which the plaintiff and his family faced due to the defendants. Although no amount of money can compensate for the trauma suffered by the plaintiff and his family however the plaintiff is restricting the claim to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- to be paid by the defendants jointly and severally. 16. That the car suffered fire due to a t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s in dispute in the suit, though he need not be a person in favour of or against whom the decree is to be made. If a person is not found to be a proper or necessary party, the court has no jurisdiction to implead him, against the wishes of the plaintiff. The fact that a person is likely to secure a right/interest in a suit property, after the suit is decided against the plaintiff, will not make such person a necessary party or a proper party to the suit for specific performance." 13. The deletion of a party as a defendant in a suit is therefore possible only upon arriving at a determination that the party is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit. 14. The allegations contained in the plaint in the present case must be analysed in the context of these principles. The relief sought in the plaint is for a decree against "the defendants, jointly and severally". To this extent, it is clear that the plaintiff has sought relief against the defendants no. 4 and 5 as well. The question then is whether he has disclosed a cause of action against the said defendants, entitling him to proceed against them. 15. As far as the defendant no. 4 is concerned, the plaint makes out a cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e action which cannot be effectually and completely settled unless he is a party. The line has been drawn on a wider construction of the rule between the direct interest or the legal interest and commercial interest. It is, therefore, necessary that the person must be directly or legally interested in the action in the answer, i.e., he can say that the litigation may lead to a result which will affect him legally that is by curtailing his legal rights. It is difficult to say that the rule contemplates joining as a defendant a person whose only object is to prosecute his own cause of action. Similar provision was considered in Amon v. Raphael Tuck & Sons Ltd. [(1956) 1 All ER 273: (1956) 1 QB 357], wherein after quoting the observations of Wynn-Parry, J. in Dollfus Mieg et Compagnie S.A. v. Bank of England [(1950) 2 All ER 605, 611], that their true test lies not so much in an analysis of what are the constituents of the applicants' rights, but rather in what would be the result on the subject matter of the action if those rights could be established, Devlin, J. has stated: "The test is 'May the order for which the plaintiff is asking directly affect the intervener in the ....