M. RAHMAN Vs. AJIT KUMAR JAIN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These above said two revision petitions have been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 challenging the common impugned order dated 8.9.2006 passed in Revision Petition No. 80/SC/2005 and Revision Petition No. 91/SC/2005 filed by respondent No. 1, by U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (for short, 'the State Commission'). The complainants, Mr. Ajit Kumar Jain and Mr. C. G. Jain filed execution petition before the District Forum.

(2.) Two recovery certificates issued by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kanpur on 23.6.2004 for recovery of Rs.1,05,050/- and Rs.2,21,533/- were served upon the petitioner, Mr. M. Rahman through the office of District Collector, Kanpur. The petitioner, Mr. M. Rahman filed an application for deleting his name from the recovery certificate, which was allowed by the District Forum. The District Forum observed that the complainant has not filed any evidence on the basis of which, it could be found out that Mr. M. Rahman was the Chairman/Partner/Owner or he was anywhere responsible for the activities of M/s Suman Motels Ltd. Also, Mr. M. Rahman was not a party to the complaint. Under such circumstances, initiation of execution proceeding against Mr. M. Rahman was not proper in pursuance to the decree passed in the complaint No. 737 and 738 of 2000.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the impugned order of District Forum, the complainant filed an appeal before the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow. The State Commission allowed the appeal and directed that the execution must be proceeded forthwith without delay to recover the amount from Mr. M. Rahman.