SANJAY K MALVIYA Vs. SIDDHARTH ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the orders dated 4. 8. 1998 and 30. 8. 2007 of State Commission, Delhi. Along with Memo of Appeal, the appellant has filed application seeking condonation of delay in filing appeal against the order dated 4. 8. 1998 in terms whereof M/s. Transbridge Shipping Pvt. Ltd. , OP No. 1. who was ex parte, was directed to pay a total amount of Rs. 4,28,500 to respondent No. 1 complainant. In execution proceedings by the said order dated 30. 8. 2007, the appellant has been ordered to make payment of the balance awarded amount of Rs. 2,14,000. Two Demand Drafts of Rs. 1,00,000 each and cash amount of Rs. 14,000 have been given on behalf of Preeti U. Rumade and Ulhas D. Rumade, Directors of OP No. 1, Company to respondent No. 1.

(2.) SUBMISSION advanced by Mr. Hiren Dasan for the appellant is that the appellant was not a party in the complaint wherein the order dated 4 8. 1998 was made. Appellant was the Executive Director of OP No. 1-Co. sometime upto 1997. Appellant, thus, not being a party in complaint or Director of OP No. 1 on the date the award was made cannot be made to pay any amount to respondent No. 1. Further submission advanced is that by the order dated 30. 8. 2007, the State Commission without any basis has fixed the liability for payment of amount of Rs. 2,14,000 by the appellant. It is pointed out that the State Commission, Delhi did not have even the territorial jurisdiction to decide the complaint as the appellant for last so many years has been staying in Mumbai.

(3.) COPY of the order dated 4. 8. 1998 is at pages 1 to 5 while that of dated 30. 8. 2007 is at page No. 6. Former order would show that OP No. 1 had failed to appear in the complaint in spite of service of notice. Appellant as Director of OP No. 1 was not impleaded as a party in the complaint. At this juncture, decision in Ravi Kant and Anr. v. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and Ors. , I (1997) CPJ 271 (DB)=66 (1997) DLT 13 (DB), which has bearing in this appeal need be referred to. In this case, the petitioner No. 1 and his wife- petitioner No. 2, Directors had sought issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the orders of National Commission dated 8. 12. 1995 and order of the State Commission, Delhi dated 15. 10. 1993 in four Complaint Case Nos. C-242, C-243, C-255 of 1992 and C-82 of 1993. By the order dated 15. 10. 1993 passed under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act), the State Commission had imposed a sentence of one year simple imprisonment on petitioner No. 1 and directed him to pay fine of Rs. 5,000 in each of the four cases. Petitioner No. 2 was directed to pay fine of Rs. 10,000 in Case No. 243 of 1992. This order was confirmed by the National Commission on 8. 12. 1995. As may be seen from para No. 9 of the decision, the following issues arose for consideration before the High Court: