(1.) After filing the Complaint Case No.38 of 2003 on 2.11.2003, the Legal Representative of the complainants Mr. M. Bhatnagar appeared before the State Commission on 17.11.2003 and sought a short adjournment as he wanted to amend the complaint. The complaint case was adjourned for today i. e.5.12.2003 for filing the amended complaint. The office had reported in its report on the original complaint that only one respondent was shown whereas in the body of the complaint, there was reference of respondent No.2. In the amended complaint, the form of parties particularly as the 'defendants' remains the same and it reads as also in the original complaint as under : "shanti Traders, SCO 12-A, Sector 7c (Back Side) Madhya Marg, Chandigarh and Others. "
(2.) Even Shanti Traders has not been impleaded through some competent person to represent it and the complaint also does not show whether Shanti Traders is a firm duly registered or is a Company duly incorporated. In case, it is a firm then it is to be impleaded through one of the partners of the firm, or if, it is a sole proprietorship firm, then through the sole proprietor for service of notice on behalf of the firm on the competent person. In case it is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, then an averment has to be made in that regard and the Company should be represented through either the Managing Director or the Company Secretary, as the case may be, so that notice is duly served on such a Company.
(3.) Apart from this, the expression "and Others" is quite vague and does not disclose the number of respondents intended to be impleaded as respondents. When this fact was brought to the notice of Mr. M. Bhatnagar, he contended that he has impleaded the respondent as he wanted to implead and as per the information which could be collected by him. He was not willing to either delete "and Others" or to implead the respondent Shanti Traders through a competent person on whom the service of notice could be made.