(1.) -previously a substitution application was moved by heirs of complainant as the complainant had died. That substitution application was opposed and by order dated 2nd December, 1999 the same was allowed. After passing of the above order, learned Counsel for the opposite party moved an application mentioning therein that on two points no decision has been given in the order dated 2.12.1999.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the opposite party as well as learned Counsel for the complainant were heard.
(3.) The first point raised and argued by the learned Counsel for the opposite party is that there is no provision under Consumer Protection Act for substitution of legal representatives. No doubt there is no express provision in the Consumer Protection Act for substituting the legal representatives or heirs of a deceased party, but it does not mean that the State Commission does not possess any authentic powers to implead a heir or legal representative of a party who has died mid-way. If a cause of action survives and the suit or proceeding can be continued by his heir or legal representative, then he can be permitted to continue the proceedings by substituting his name in place of deceased party. There is no specific bar held in adopting this course of action. We have to be guided by the principles of natural justice and the objective with which the Consumer Protection Act has been passed is to be kept in consideration and that objective cannot be achieved if a pending litigation is terminated mid-way on the death of a party. In the present case the cause of action survives as the complainant and the compensation which has been claimed by the complainant has to be seen in the light of the facts on record. Thus the Consumer Protection Act which has been passed to protect the interests of the consumers is to be advanced further and for that reason the substitution application can be allowed and the legal heirs can be substituted in place of the deceased party. Hence this objection has no force and is rejected.