BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

31^st DAY OF MAY 2016

O R D E R

Orders on application filed U/s.151 of CPC dated 18.04.2016.

SRI. P.V SINGRI, PRESIDENT

Perused the application filed U/s.151 of CPC and memorandum of facts filed in support of the same also perused the objection statement filed by the OPs to the said application.

2. The case was set down for filing of affidavit evidence of complainant on 06.04.2016 as a last chance.  The affidavit evidence of complainant was not filed on that day.  On 18.04.2016 the present application came to be filed together with affidavit evidence of the complainant.  It is stated in the memorandum of facts filed in support of the application that, on the last date of hearing i.e., on 06.04.2016 the counsel for the complainant could not appear before the Forum on time because of vehicular trouble.  Therefore, now the affidavit evidence is being filed which may be taken on record for determination of the complaint.

3. The OPs filed their objections to the above application contending that, the counsel who has filed the Interim Application U/s.151 of CPC does not hold power and he has no locus-standi to file any such application.  It was further contended that affidavit evidence is filed by one Mr.Gopalakrishnan P.K, who is not authorized by the complainant company to appear on their behalf and to file affidavit evidence.  Therefore, OPs prayed for rejection of the application as well as the affidavit evidence. 

4. On perusal of the power filed for the complainant it is evident that, the counsel who had signed this interim application does not hold power for complainant.  The Learned Advocate also did not tell us as to who authorized him to file the present application.  It is also not known as to whether the said advocate is working for or with Crest Law Partners who hold power for the complainant.  The advocate who has signed this application neither hold power for the complainant nor has been authorized by a competent person to file this application.  Moreover the affidavit evidence submitted along with this application is also not sworn to by any competent person or authorized by the complainant company.  No explanation either in the application or in the memorandum of facts as to why the counsel on record for the complainant did not come forward to sign the present interim application.  Neither the advocate who has signed the application is competent to appear on behalf of the complainant company nor the person who has tendered his evidence by affidavit is authorized by board of directors of complainant company to submit his affidavit evidence.  Therefore, we are of the opinion that the present application itself is not maintainable and is liable to dismissed.

5. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant Garuda Polyflex Foods Pvt. Ltd., a Company registered under the companies Act, 1956, through its Managing Director Mr.Jayachandran.  At the time of filing of complaint a extract of resolution passed at the meeting of the board of directors of the complainant company dated 24^th July 2012 is produced according to which, the said Jayachandran, Managing Director has been authorized to file the complaint on behalf of the complainant company.  However, the affidavit evidence filed along with the present application is sworn to by one Gopalakrishnan P.K, claiming himself to be authorized representative of the complainant company.  However, the said Gopalakrishnan P.K did not produce any authorization letter as was produced at the time of filing the complaint.  Despite a serious objection raised by the OPs that the said Gopalakrishnan P.K is not an authorized person to represent the complainant company, complainant did not bother to produce authorization letter issued by the board of directors of the company.  It is also not known as to whether above mentioned Mr.Jayachandran, Managing Director who has signed the complainant is still working with the company or not.  In absence of resolution by the board of directors of the complainant company authorizing him to represent the company, the said Gopalakrishnan P.K cannot be permitted to represent the complainant company and file affidavit on behalf of the company.  Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that, an affidavit evidence submitted by an unauthorized person cannot be entertained.  Despite sufficient time and opportunity given, the complainant company failed to file their affidavit evidence of their authorized representative and prosecute the complaint.  Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

6. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:

  O R D E R

I.A filed by the complainant U/s.151 of CPC dated 18.04.2016 is dismissed, consequent there upon the complaint is dismissed for non prosecution.

Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 31^st day of May 2016)

MEMBER                            MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

Vln*