2019 (9) TMI 1615 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking recovery of damage with interest - Claim of indemnity not fulfilled - Defects in a second-hand car - allegation of the plaintiff is that within three months of purchase of the car by him, the car started emitting smoke and burnt down on starting the ignition - HELD THAT - In general, it is for the plaintiff in a suit to decide against whom it wishes to proceed. The impleadment of a party can be on the basis that it is a necessary or a proper party to the proceedings. A necessary party is one against whom the plaintiff seeks relief or in whose absence an effective decree cannot be passed. A proper party is one against whom relief may not be sought but whose presence is essential for the determination of the questions involved in the suit. 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. As far as the defendant no. 4 is concerned, the plaint makes out a case of a manufacturing defect which led to the fire in the car. The defendant no. 4 does not deny the fact that it has manufactured the car, but disputes liability on the ground that the warranty had expired. There is a categorical assertion in the plaint that the car was inspected by defendant no. 5, and a report was provided to the plaintiff. In its reply to the application filed by the defendant no. 5, the plaintiff has also averred that the defendant no. 5 had raised an invoice on him for this purpose. In this context, the analysis of the plaint in the impugned order is unsatisfactory. The Trial Court appears to have proceeded primarily on the basis that the plaintiff had failed to adduce any documentary evidence that the vehicle suffered from a manufacturing defect, and that there was no document in support of the plaintiff's case of an inspection by defendant no. 5. The petitioner has made out a case for interference with the impugned order, which is set aside. The defendants no. 4 and 5 are restored to their original positions in the suit. However, it is made clear that in the event the said defendants are ultimately not found liable to the plaintiff, they will be entitled to seek an appropriate order of costs in their favour - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of defendants no. 4 and 5 from the suit.
2. Cause of action against defendants no. 4 and 5.
3. Application of Order I Rule 10 of the CPC.
4. Analysis of the evidence at the stage of deletion of parties.
5. Allegations of manufacturing defect and inspection of the car.
6. Determination of necessary and proper parties in a suit.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of defendants no. 4 and 5 from the suit:
The plaintiff challenged the Trial Court's order dated 21.09.2017, which deleted defendants no. 4 (BMW India Pvt. Ltd.) and 5 (M/s. Deutsche Motoren Pvt. Ltd.) from the array of parties in the suit. The Trial Court allowed the applications for deletion of these defendants under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC, concluding that there was no documentary evidence to support the plaintiff's claims against them.

2. Cause of action against defendants no. 4 and 5:
The plaintiff alleged that the car, a BMW 320D, purchased on 12.03.2014, had a manufacturing defect that caused it to emit smoke and burn down on 19.06.2014. The plaintiff sought indemnity from defendant no. 4 (the manufacturer) and claimed that defendant no. 5 (the authorized dealer) had inspected the car and certified it as defect-free before the purchase. The Trial Court's deletion of these defendants was based on the absence of documentary evidence of the inspection and the cause of the fire.

3. Application of Order I Rule 10 of the CPC:
Order I Rule 10 of the CPC allows the Court to strike out or add parties to a suit. The deletion of a party is permissible only if the party is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit. A necessary party is one against whom relief is sought or in whose absence an effective decree cannot be passed. A proper party is one whose presence is essential for the determination of the questions involved in the suit.

4. Analysis of the evidence at the stage of deletion of parties:
The High Court found that the Trial Court's analysis of the evidence was premature and unwarranted at the stage of deciding the applications for deletion. The Trial Court should have reserved the analysis of evidence for the trial stage. The High Court noted that the plaintiff had pleaded a cause of action against defendants no. 4 and 5, and the allegations in the plaint were sufficient to proceed against them.

5. Allegations of manufacturing defect and inspection of the car:
The plaintiff alleged that the car had a manufacturing defect, leading to the fire. The plaintiff also claimed that defendant no. 5 had inspected the car and provided a report certifying it as defect-free. The High Court emphasized that the plaintiff had made categorical assertions regarding the inspection and the manufacturing defect, which were sufficient to disclose a cause of action against defendants no. 4 and 5.

6. Determination of necessary and proper parties in a suit:
The High Court reiterated that the plaintiff has the right to decide against whom to proceed in a suit. The presence of defendants no. 4 and 5 was necessary to adjudicate the questions involved in the suit. The High Court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Mumbai International Airport (P) Ltd. vs. Regency Convention Centre & Hotels (P) Ltd. & Ors., which explained the distinction between necessary and proper parties.

Conclusion:
The High Court set aside the Trial Court's order and restored defendants no. 4 and 5 to their original positions in the suit. The Court clarified that if these defendants are ultimately not found liable, they would be entitled to seek an appropriate order of costs in their favor. The petition was allowed with no order as to costs.