SHWETA KUMARSWAMI Vs. STATE OF J&K AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Sections 103 and 104 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, for quashing of orders dated 21.12.2004, 31.01.2005 passed by respondent No. 2 in an execution petition titled Dr. D.S. Aulakh v. Smt. Savita Bengji and order dated 26.12.2002 passed in a complaint No. 1928/99 titled Dr. D.S. Aulakh v. Smt. Savita Benji.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that M/S Eagle Dent Equipments Pvt. Ltd. had sold equipments to the tune of Rs. 1,83,796.50 vide its invoice dated 07.07.1995 to M/S BGM Dental Hospital, Jammu. M/S BGM Dental Hospital, Jammu had made payment of Rs. 1,03,500/- on 03.08.1995 and an amount of Rs. 80,246.50 remained outstanding towards it. Respondent No. 3 filed a complaint before the J&K State Consumer Protection Commission, Jammu on 11.05.1999, alleging therein that the equipments sold by one Savita Benji were of inferior quality, in which Smt. Savita Benji was only impleaded as opposite party. Respondent No. 3 was having no locus standi to file the complaint because the equipments were sold to M/S BGM Dental Hospital Jammu and not to respondent No. 3. Moreover, respondent No. 3 was not a consumer within the definition of Section 2(d) of the J&K Consumer Protection act, because the goods were purchased for commercial purpose.

(3.) Respondent No. 2 had passed an ex-parte order on 26.12.2002 for making payment of Rs. 1,03,500/- with interest @ 9% per annum, Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 3000/- as cost of litigation in favour of respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 2 passed the said order without giving any direction for return of the costly equipments to the company. The order was passed against Smt. Savita Benji, who is a non-existent person. The petitioner filed objections to the execution petition, stating therein that her full and correct name is Smt. Shweta Kumarswami and she cannot be compelled to make payment when she was not impleaded as opposite party. The respondent No. 2 passed an order for issuance of non bailable warrants of arrest against the petitioner on 31.01.2005 by observing that there is a resemblance in the name of petitioner and Smt. Savita Benji, as such the petitioner was held liable to make payment, even though she was not a party.