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.
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.
The impugned order of the District Forum has been challenged on the ground that Shri Deepak Kumar Singhania had been impleaded in the
execution application for the first time by name and he was not so impleaded as an opposite party in the complaint case. LML Limited, it was
alleged, was a public limited company having the regional office at SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17- C, Chandigarh from which Shri Deepak Kumar
Singhania did not function. The said company was represented by its duly authorised signatory Shri A.K. Johri who had placed on record the
authorization letter regarding this case and made his appearance before the District Forum. There was no direction in the order passed by the
District Forum against Shri Deepak Kumar Singhania and as such Shri Deepak Kumar Singhania could not be described to be a person who was
directed to comply with the directions made in the order deciding the complaint case. The respondent/complainant had impleaded Shri Deepak
Kumar Singhania in the execution petition with a view to play mischief and cause hardship and harassment to him. It was also urged that the District
Forum went wrong in refusing to recognize the presence of Shri A.K. Johri as a person authorised to represent the public company LML Limited.
3. A perusal of the complaint case will go to show that LML Limited was impleaded through its Managing Director, Regional Office-I, Chandigarh
and M/s. Em Pee Motors and Scooters (Private) Limited. Shri Deepak Kumar Singhania was not impleaded in person in the complaint case nor
his name was mentioned in the description of O.P. No. 1, in the complaint case. Thus, in the instant case, Shri Deepak Kumar Singhania was not
disclosed as the person through whom the company had been arrayed as an opposite party.
The reply, which was filed to the application under Section 27 of the C.P. Act, was signed by the whole time Director of the company namely Shri
Sanjeev Shriya who also appointed Shri Rakesh Kerwell son of Shri B.S. Kerwell, resident of H. No. 1522, Sector 18-D, Chandigarh presently
working as Senior Manager and Shri A.K. Johri son of Shri O.P. Johri c/o. 2224, Sector 44-C, Chandigarh presently working as Commercial
Officer, as company''s true and lawful attorneys and on behalf of the company to do, perform and execute the acts mentioned in the power of
attorney. It is also not in dispute that the company is a public company and the reply had been filed to the application under Section 27 of the C.P.
Act by the company to whom directions were issued by the District Forum for compliance. Hence the District Forum, in our considered opinion,
committed an error in law in refusing to entertain the reply filed by the LML Limited through Shri A.K. Johri, Commercial Officer and in insisting
upon the presence of Shri Deepak Kumar Singhania in connection with the non-compliance of the order passed by the District Forum.
4. RESULTANTLY, the revision has considerable merit and is allowed to the extent that the impugned order refusing to entertain the reply filed by
LML Ltd. through Shri A.K. Johri is set aside and further the order for issuance of bailable warrant of arrest for Shri Deepak Kumar Singhania is
also set aside. The District Forum shall proceed to hear the Counsel for LML Limited on the reply filed by the company through Shri A.K. Johri
and shall proceed to determine the liability of the person duly authorised to represent the company and who is liable to implement and comply with
the order of the District Forum. The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 21.7.2004. Parties shall bear their own costs of
revision. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Revision allowed.