MAITREYA V. DOSHI vs NARENDER KAUR CHAUDHARY

AFORESAID seven appeals arise from the common order dated 12th January, 2007 passed by the District Forum whereby the appellant who happens to be one of the Directors of the Company at the relevant time was directed to appear in person for replying show-cause notice under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

AS many as 28 complaints were filed against the company-Pal Peugeot Ltd. for refund of the booking amount of Rs. 25,000 Peugeot 309 car which the company assured to deliver any time. Since the car could not be delivered in time the bookings were cancelled and refund was claimed. On refusal of the refund by the company the complainant approached the District Forum. Vide impugned order dated 17.2.1999 the District Forum directed the appellant-Company to refund the booking amount to each of the complainants along with interest @ 9% p.a. compounded annually from the date of booking till the date of cancellation as identical orders were passed in another batch of 167 similar cases. On failure of the company to comply with the said order the complainant filed the execution petition before the District Forum.

The contention of the Counsel for the appellant, in brief, is that the summons was in the name of the Managing Director of the Company-Pal Peugeot Limited and not in the name of Directors of the Company with whom the booking was made.

THE very fact that the appellant was not impleaded as a respondent in the original complaint filed by the complainants as M/s. Pal Peugeot Limited alone was impleaded as opposite party did not make him liable for the compliance of the order dated 17.2.1999 passed by the District Forum unless and until inquiry was conducted or the record was obtained by the District Forum from the Registrar of Companies as to the Directors/Managing Directors of the Company at the relevant time. The learned Counsel for the appellant has also referred to an order of winding up of the Company by the order dated 26.9.2005 passed by the High Court, Bombay and therefore the amount is payable by the Official Liquidator of the Company and not by the individual directors.

THE learned Counsel for the appellant also placed reliance on the order of the High Court in O.O.C.J. in ICICI Limited v. Pal Peugeot Limited, wherein it was held that proceedings under Section 27 in relation to the Assessor of the Company are covered by Section 446 of the Companies Act such proceedings cannot continue except with the leave of the High Court. However, it appears that the District Forum has issued show-cause notice to the appellant on the latter''s admission that he was one of the directors of the Company against which the order was passed. But he was only a part-time director and was not looking after the day-to-day management of the affairs of the Company and had resigned from 25.9.2002, i.e., much before filing of the complaint. In view of the above referred order of the High Court i.e. seeking leave of Bombay High Court, we allow the appeal at the outset, set aside the impugned order with the direction to the District Forum to first initiate the recovery proceedings against the Company against which the order was passed by resorting to proceedings under Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act.

PARTIES shall appear before the District Forum on 3.5.2007 for the aforesaid purpose.

APPEAL is disposed of in aforesaid terms. Fdr/Bank Guarantee, if any, furnished by the appellant be returned forthwith after completion of due formalities.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room. Appeals allowed.