STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW.

APPEAL NO.1784 OF 1994

(Against the judgment/order dated 04.06.1994 in Complaint Case No.1245/1992 of the District Consumer Forum, Behraich.)

1. General Manager II,

U.P. Rajya Sadak Parivahan Nigam,

Lucknow.

Through Regional Manager,

Lucknow Shetra,

U.P. Rajya Sadak Parivahan Nigam,

Lucknow.

2. Chairman,

3. Secretary,

4. Managing Director

Parivahan Nigam Mukhyalaya,

Lucknow.          

                                                                  ...............Appellants

Vs

1. Sanjay Kumar,

S/o Banwari Lal,

R/o Cantt Market,

Behraich.

2. Mohd. Sadik,

S/o Gulam Asgar,

Through M/s National Oil Store,

Latus Road, Lucknow.

3. District Consumer Forum,

Behraich.                                                                                                                                            ...............Respondents

BEFORE:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT

HON’BLE SMT. BAL KUMARI, MEMBER

For the Appellants                            : Sri Gyan Singh Chauhan, Advocate.

For the Respondents               : None present.

Dated: 13.07.2016

-2-

JUDGMENT

MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN (ORAL)

Present appeal has been filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 herein after referred as Act against judgment and order dated 27.09.1993 as well as order dated 04.06.1994 passed in complaint No.1245/1992 Sanjay Kumar & another Vs General Manager II, U.P. Rajya Sadak Parivahan Nigam and others.

Appellants are OPs of said complaint.

Vide impugned judgment and order dated 27.09.1993 District Consumer Forum, Behraich has directed appellant/OPs to pay to respondents/complainants Rs.13,200.00 price of the drums in question with interest @18% p.a. from 04.03.1991 till date of payment. The District Consumer Forum has further directed appellant/OPs to pay to Respondent/Complainants Rs.2,000.00 as symbolic compensation.

Impugned order dated 04.06.1994 has been passed by District Consumer Forum in said complaint in pursuance and compliance of above judgment and order dated 27.09.1993. Vide this order dated 04.06.1994 District Consumer Forum has imposed fine of Rs.2,000.00 on Appellant/OP and has directed that in default of payment of said amount of fine within a week from the date of service of notice the appellant shall undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months.

Learned Counsel for appellants appeared. None appeared for Respondents/Complainants. Notices sent to Respondents have been returned unserved with the endorsement that the Respondents are not living at the address given.

Learned Counsel for appellants has submitted before us that in appeal addresses of Respondent/Complainants are same as in complaint. Appellants are unable to know the other addresses of Respondent/Complainant. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the appeal should be disposed of finally.

We have considered the submissions made by learned

-3-

Counsel for the appellants. The addresses of Respondent/Complainants are same as in complaint but notices sent to them could not be served and were returned with endorsement that at given addresses they do not reside. Appellant/OPs are unable to trace the Respondent/Complainant and to bring out new addresses of Complainants. In these circumstances, we hear the learned Counsel for appellants on merit of appeal in absence of Respondents. Learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that the impugned judgment an