Haryana

Yamunanagar

MA/4/2021

Brij Bhushan and Happy S/o Mahesh Chander - Complainant(s)

Versus

Yamuna Refrigerator Air, M/s Saini Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Rajpal Kait

24 Jan 2023

ORDER

EA No.17 of 2020 and MA No.4 of 2021.

Brij Bhushan vs. Yamuna Refrigeration.

 

Present:   Sh.Vikas Aggarwal, Adv. for complainant.

                None for opponent.

                None for applicant in MA No.4 of 2021.

 

                                       This order will dispose of EA No.17 of 2020 and MA No.4 of 2021.

 1.                              The petitioner filed execution petition against the opponent No.2 in CC no.339 of 2017, which was decided vide order dated 10.2.2020 passed by this Commission. During the pendency of the execution petition, as per version of the petitioner, the opponent No.2 came into hands of Naresh Kumar-opponent No.1(applicant) being authorized service center of Whirlpool Refrigertor. However, said Naresh Kumar appeared before this Commission and filed an application before this Commission on 13.9.2021 through his counsel, stating he had no nexus with the opponent No.2 and he was not liable to comply with the order dated 10.2.2020.

2.                                 On 25.11.2022, proceedings were adjourned to arguments on the application dated 13.9.2021, but on 25.11.2022, no one had appeared on behalf of the applicant, resultant, proceedings were adjourned to 24.1.2023 i.e. today itself, but again no one appeared on behalf of the applicant, either in person or through any Advocate.

3.                                The moot question before this Commission is whether the Naresh Kumar, so called proprietor of opponent No.2 is having any nexus with the original of opponent No.2 i.e. Yamuna Refrigerator?

4.                              As per report made on the registered post envelop, which is on the record, the opponent No.2 left the address, then, one Sunil Kumar, employee appeared before this Commission and according to which Naresh Kumar is the proprietor of service center/opponent No.2 and when process issued against Naresh Kumar, so called proprietor, then, he appeared before the Commission and filed the application in hand and he has denied in writing any liability on behalf of erstwhile opponent No.2. 

5.                        Whether the applicant is having any nexus with the original opponent No.2 or is successor of opponent No.2, the petitioner has not placed any document, on record in this regard and in the absence of successor of original opponent No.2, it is not desireable to compel the applicant Naresh Kumar to enforce the order dated 10.2.2020 due to non establishment of actual nexus, such as successor of erstwhile opponent No.2. 

6.                          Consequently, the order dated 10.2.2020 at this stage is not enforceable against the applicant, so considering the totality of facts, the application dated 13.9.2021 is accepted and execution proceedings in EA No.17 of 2020 are closed as at this stage, order dated 10.2.2020 is un-executable. However, petitioner shall be at liberty to file a fresh execution petition against the actual successor of the original opponent No.2 along  with solid proof and then, the process may be issued against the person or the entity concerned and in the fresh execution petition, the petitioner will disclose the particulars of this execution petition and fate of this execution petition. Record of this execution petition along with record of application dated 13.9.2021 is hereby ordered to be consigned to the records.    

 

                                                                        President,

                                                                        DCDRC, YNR,

        L.Member.         Member.                      24.1.2023.

 

Typed by Gaphoor Deen, Assistant.