ORDER NO. 5 DT. 22.12.08

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOKE CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT

Heard the Appellant No. 1 in person,  Mr. Maitra, Ld. Advocate for the for the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 and Mr. P Banerjee, Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No. 4.  It appears that the impugned judgement proceeded on the sole ground that Power of Attorney filed by the Petitioner No. 1 on behalf of the Petitioner No. 2 was not proper.  Mr. Moitra and Mr. Banerjee while opposing the Appeal contended that in such circumstances the complaint is not maintainable.  We have considered the contentions of the parties and perused the materials on record.  Even if the Power of Attorney is regarded to be bad, the Petitioner No. 1 does not remain entitled to represent the Petitioner No. 2, on whose behalf Power of Attorney was executed.  It appears that the Petitioner No. 2 admittedly was the purchaser of the set in dispute.  Therefore, the complaint on behalf of the Petitioner No. 2 does not become in any way irregular even after a finding that the Power of Attorney was irregular.  In such circumstances, the name of the Petitioner No. 1 is deleted from the complaint and Forum is directed to decide the matter in accordance with law granting opportunities to the parties to adduce evidence treating the complaint to have been filed solely by the Petitioner No. 2.

The Appeal is allowed.  The impugned order is set aside with the above direction.  No order as to cost.