R.K. Batta, Presiding Member—Both these revisions arise out of a common judgment of the State Commission and as such the same were heard together. We have heard Counsel for the petitioner on admission and he has submitted before us that the Petitioner/Director cannot be made liable in his personal capacity and the Company-Respondent No.4 has sufficient assets to satisfy the claim of the complainants. Learned counsel stated that a reference was made under Section 15 of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 and inquiry under Sections 16 & 17 is pending before BIFR and proceedings in question cannot continue in view of Section 22 thereof. It is further submitted that official liquidator has been appointed. It may be pointed out at this stage that in support of this submission no material has been produced except for a letter dated 25.10.2002 which only speaks of receipt of reference under Section 15(1) of SLC (SP) Act 1985 and that the same is registered. It may be pointed out at this stage that Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 has been repealed by Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Repeal Act, 2003. BIFR and Appellate Board have been abolished. It is also submitted that Respondent No.4 was never served before the District Forum and when the petitioner who is a Director of Respondent No.4, came to know of the order of the District Forum, he had filed appeals before the State Commission which have been dismissed on account of delay in filing the said appeals.

2. The petitioner does not dispute that the complainants had deposited Rs.2,00,222 with Respondent No.4 in Complaint Case No.149 of 2003 and a sum of Rs.1,42,222 in Complaint Case No.56 of 2005. This fact is in fact admitted by the present in the Appeal Nos. 239/239/07 and.240/07 filed before the State Commission.

3. Admittedly, the matter before the District Forum had proceeded ex parte since no one appeared on behalf of the Respondent No.4. In Complaint Case No.149 of 2003, the District Forum ordered payment in respect of 12 deposits as also compensation and costs and granted liberty to the complainant to file fresh complaint with regard to certificates 13 to 20 once the maturity of the said certificate is completed. In Complaint Case No. 56/05, the District Forum ordered payment of deposits with compensation and costs.

4. The orders of the District Forum were challenged by the present petitioner before the State Commission. In the memo of appeal filed before the State Commission it was stated that a complaint was filed against Directors of Respondent No.4 M/s. Suman Motors Ltd. under Maharashtra Protection and Interest of the Depositors Act, 1999 on the basis of which the present petitioner (Appellant before the State Commission) was arrested along with other Directors and the properties of the Company were seized by the investigating officer on account of which, the business of the Company stopped. It is further stated in the appeal memo that due to the said facts the Directors of the Respondent No.4 were restrained from going out of Bombay city due to which matters relating to the present complaint filed before the Consumer Forum at Nandurbar could not be attended in proper manner. This clearly shows that the present petitioner and the other Directors were fully aware of the proceedings before the Consumer Forum, but they deliberately chose not to contest the same on the ground they were restrained from going out of Bombay city. However, the petitioner and the other Directors could certainly contest the complaints in question by appointing Advocates and power of attorney if necessary. It is also clear from what is pleaded in the appeal memo before the State Commission that the District Forum had issued bailable warrants on 28.1.2005 against the present petitioner which was sought to be executed by the police on 15.3.2007.

5. The appeals were filed before the State Commission with delay of 790 days and 586 days. The