This is an application filed under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act to proceed against the offender for non compliance of the order passed by this Forum on 18/5/01 in OP.1144/00. The complaint was for realization of the remitted kuri amount with interest. In the order dated 18/5/01 the Forum delivered a judgement to the effect that the complaint is allowed against the 1^st respondent company only. Therefore the 1^st respondent company is directed to pay the actual remitted amount with 12% interest from the date of auction after deducting foreman commission to the petitioner within one month after receipt of the order. So it is clear that the respondent No.1 only is liable to return the amount to the complainant. The respondent did not prefer appeal. Execution application was filed by the complainant and numbered as MP.241/02 and is pending before the Forum. When warrant was ordered against the offender he approached Hon’ble High Court and the Court made it clear that even if the order is against the Company only all the directors are liable for the acts. In the impugned order Hon’ble High Court directed the Forum to conduct an enquiry to find out the real persons who are responsible to comply the order passed by the Forum. So enquiry was conducted and Exhibits P1 to P5 were marked on the part of petitioner and the offender was examined as RW1 and Exhibit R1 is marked. There was a direction from Hon’ble High Court to the offender to furnish the details of the Company such as names and addresses of the shareholders, pattern of share holding assets of the Company etc. The offender has produced a list of the address of the directors of the Company and the petitioner did not oppose or file any other list.

            2. During enquiry complainant was not examined and Exhibits P1 to P5 were marked. The offender who is examined as RW1 deposed that he had been resigned from the board of directors on 9^th month of 2000. The petitioner had joined the kuri on 4/10/92 and auctioned the kuri on 4/1/00. So at the time of money transactions by the petitioner in the firm the offender was a responsible man there. From which date onwards he was there in the company is not mentioned and not deposed also. His main contention is that at the time of pronouncement of order in OP 1144/00 and at the time of filing execution application he was not a director and he is not liable. During cross examination a definite question was put and he admitted that he had signed in Exhibit P4 as Chairman of the company.   Below the sign of this offender another director K.K.Achuthan was also put signature. The seal shows they had put signature as directors. But during examination the offender admitted that he had put signature as Chairman of the company. In the order of Hon’ble High Court it is made clear that the petitioner is bound to furnish the details of management and holding of the assets of the company. The offender and the petitioner did not furnish the details and did not take steps to furnish. There is also no evidence to show that this person solely was owned and managed the assets.   In the proof affidavit he has stated that the assets were not handled by him and there is no challenge on that point. The company is not a one man company as admitted by both. The list of directors not opposed by the petitioner and not a case that all the assets were handled by the offender. They proceeded against this person only because of the specific direction of this Forum. But this point made it clear by Hon’ble High Court in the order dated 16/10/03. There is lack of evidence to fix the entire burden on the shoulder of this offender. Hence this MP is dismissed with liberty to file fresh execution by making all the directors in the party array.

 

           

           

 

           

 

           

             Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 22nd day of December 2008.