T.M. Hassan Pillai, President — All these appeals are directed against an order which we are constrained to

describe as an absurd order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thiruvananthapuram in O.P.No.102/99. We are called upon to decide the sustainability of that order passed in appeals filed by opposite parties 1 & 2 in the OP(A.162/2002), 3rd opposite party in the O.P.(A.163/2002) and the 4th opposite party in the O.P.(A.164/2002).

2. Complainant filed A.155/2002 and grievance voiced by him is that though the impleading application moved by him to implead opposite parties 3 to 14 has been allowed by the lower forum they are not arrayed as opposite parties in the complaint. It is contended that the lower forum should have also held that opposite parties 8 to 14 are also liable for the amount found to be due by the forum below to the complainant and should have also allowed that amount to be realised from the opposite parties 8 to14. The other ground of grievance urged is that the lower forum was not justified in absolving opposite parties Nos.5, 6 & 7 from the liability of repaying the amount deposited by the complainant and other reliefs prayed for by him, Relie