LML LIMITED Vs. KAMAL KUMAR KAKKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against order dated 16.4.2004 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -II, U.T., Chandigarh [for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum] vide which bailable warrant of arrest of Shri Deepak Kumar Singhania, accused No. 1 were directed to be issued in the sum of Rs. 10,000/ - with one surety in the like amount for 19.5.2004. Summons of O.P. No. 2 were also directed to be issued for the same date. An application under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [for short hereinafter referred to as the C.P. Act] was moved by the complainant who is respondent before us for proceeding against the O.Ps. for non -compliance of the decree passed by the District Forum.

(2.) ON the date when the impugned order was passed i.e., 16.4.2004, Shri Vaneesh Khanna, Advocate appeared for O.P. No. 1 Shri A.K. Johri. Shri Ram Sharma, agent of O.P. No. 2 was present. The complainant was present in person. O.P. No. 1 Shri A.K. Johri filed reply to the application under Section 27 of the C.P. Act which was not entertained on the ground that Shri A.K. Johri was not an accused in that case and he had no locus standi to file any reply to the complaint filed under Section 27 the C.P. Act Mr. Vaneesh Khanna, Advocate moved an application for and on behalf of Shri Deepak Kumar Singhania, Managing Director of LML Limited for exemption of his personal appearance. The same was also declined as Mr. Vaneesh Khanna, Advocate was not in a position to give any undertaking that Shri Deepak Kumar Singhania shall appear in person before the District Forum on the next date of hearing.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant bearing No. 1003/1999 was initially decided ex parte by the District Forum vide order dated 14.1.2003, which was challenged in appeal before this State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the appeal and the petitioners who were O.Ps./respondents in the complaint and the appeal complied with the order. However, the respondent/complainant filed an execution petition in July, 2003 complaining that the order passed by the District Forum in the complaint case has not been complied with. The petitioners filed a reply before the District Forum after service of notice and contended that they had duly complied with the orders of the District Forum but still, the District Forum passed an order on 16.4.2004 vide which summons were issued to the petitioner No. 2 Shri Deepak Kumar Singhania, Managing Director, LML Limited and the same were directed to be served through Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh.