Vicarious liability must involve proper legal proceedings against the parties involved; personal liberty cannot be affected without them being a party.

JUDGMENT

The petitioners are the Chairman and the Accountant of M/S.Habitat Technology Group, Thiruvananthapuram and Kollam, respectively. The challenge raised in this writ petition is against the Ext.P1 order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kollam by which warrants of arrest were issued against the petitioners herein.

2. The facts that led to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:

The respondents 1 and 2 herein filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kollam as C.C. No.107/2014, alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties therein, in carrying out certain constructions. The opposite parties impleaded in Ext.P3 were: 1)Naveen, Site Engineer, Habitat Technology Group, Near Krishnan kovil, Puna]ur, Kollam, 2)Manager, Habitat Technology Group, Near Krishnan kovil, Punalur, Kollam, 3)Manager, Habitat Technology Group, Pallimukku, Kollam and 4)General Manager, Habitat Technology Group, Head office, Thiruvananthapuram. The complaint was allowed as per Ext.P4 order passed by the District Forum, directing the opposite parties therein, to rectify the defects and damages pointed out by the Commissioner and the expert in Ext.C1 series and C2 series reports ,within forty five days. The opposite parties therein were also directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation to the respondents 1 and 2 for defective construction of the building. It was also ordered that, if the opposite parties failed to comply with the directions to carry out the defects and damages, an amount of Rs.4,47,554/- ought to be paid.

3. The 1^st opposite party therein challenged the said order by filing an appeal before the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and as per Ext.P5 order, he was exonerated from the liability. The exoneration was mainly on the ground that, the 1^st opposite party therein, being the employee, could not be fastened with the personal liability for the amount due to the respondents 1 and 2 therein, the complainants. In the meantime, execution proceedings were initiated at the instance of respondents 1 and 2 as E.P. No.25/2018. In the execution proceedings Ext.P2 affidavit was submitted by the 1st respondent herein, wherein the names of the petitioners herein were furnished, highlighting them as the 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties in the complaint. Acting upon the said affidavit, Ext.P1 order was passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kollam directing issuance of warrant against the petitioners herein. This writ petition is submitted by the petitioners in such circumstances challenging Ext.P1.

4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the respondents.

5. The main contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that, under no circumstances Ext.P1 can be sustained, in view of the fact that, no personal liability can be fastened upon the petitioners, as they were never impleaded in the complaint as parties to the proceedings. It is pointed out that, the 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties therein were the Manager and the General Manager of the Habitat Technology Group and according to the petitioners, they never held the said positions. Besides, it is also contended that, unless the establishment itself is impleaded as one of the opposite parties, no liability can be attributed upon any of the officers responsible for the affairs of the said establishment as well.

6. After considering all relevant aspects, I find merits in the said submission. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, Ext.P3 complaint would indicate that the petitioners were never impleaded as parties to the said proceedings and even the establishment against which the claim was