G.D. Sharma, J. 1. Complainant No. 1 is a retired Senior Lecturer of the School Education Department and complainant No. 2 is a retired District & Sessions Judge from the State Judicial Service. Complainant No. 2 retired in the month of March 1997 and before his retirement he and his wife (complainant No. 1) had financial transactions with OP No. 1 which was a private finance company known and run by the name of M/s Gupta Finance Corporation B.C. Road Jammu. Sh. Kasturi Lal Gupta, (father of OP Nos. 2 to 5) and OP Nos. 2 and 4 herein were the partners. The business was being conducted from the premises located at B.C. Road Jammu where petrol pump business was also being earned under the name and style of M/S Kasturi Lal Gupta and Sons Petrol Pump B.C. Road Jammu. It was a registered company in the name and style of M/s Gupta Finance Corporation B.C. Road Jammu. The Registrar of Firms had registered the firm on 14.9.1983 vide his registration No. 2074-RF/3777. Sh. Kasturi Lal Gupta died in the year 1987 leaving behind his legal heirs namely, OPs 2 to 5 and widow Smt. Santosh Gupta. Partnership deed was executed between them on 1.1.1988 (annexure B). Sh. Satish Bali had been working as Accountant-cum-cashier with the said company. The case of the complainants is that when they were in Government service they had been approached by OPs to deposit their savings in their company (OP No. l) with an assurance that they would be getting interest @ 18% P.A. on their deposits and they would have a free will to withdraw those accumulated deposits at any time. The OPs had also assured the complainants that their investments would be having security cover in the shape of other assets owned by OP No. 1 i.e. in the petrol pump business and other finance companies. In their rejoinder which was filed in the Commission on 3.11.2005 to the rejoinders filed by the OPs, the complainants have clarified that OPs were also running other finance corporations viz. Kathua Motor Finance Co. Bahu Tawi Finance Co. and Santosh finance Co from the premises of above stated petrol pump. In their rejoinder which was filed in the Commission on 3.11.2005 to the rejoinders filed by the OPs, the complainants have clarified that OPs were also running other finance corporations viz. Kathua Motor Finance Co. Bahu Tawi Finance Co. and Santosh finance Co from the premises of above stated petrol pump. That in order to dupe the depositors of the above stated finance corporations, the accounts of deposits and withdrawals were maintained by a common ledger book in the name of OP No. l. Complainant No. 2 had started depositing his amounts in Kathua Motor Finance Corporation from 1.2.1996 to 31.10.2001 and prior to that complainant No. l alongwith her children namely, Prince Mohan Nayyar, Monica Nayyar and Sonia Nayyar had been depositing the amount with OP No. l. The complainants admit the receipts of payments reflected in their pass books and ledger book and have put up the case herein that after 22.3.2003 they had refused to make any payment. In the complaint, the reliefs claimed by them are:- 1. Refund of Rs. 19,89,949/- with compound interest @ 18% P.A. w.e.f. 22.3.2003 till full realization alongwith future interest; 2. Rupees Five lacs as compensation for mental torture and agony. 2. They have placed on record a photo-stat copy of unregistered partnership deed, annexure B, which was executed on 26.10.1987 and have laid great stress on clause 2 of the said partnership deed which runs:- "That the partnership shall continue to be in petrol pump business, transport business or such other allied business or businesses, as may be agreed upon by the parties from time to time". 3. They have also placed on record original two pass books allegedly issued by Ops in the name of `Kathua Motor Finance Co. B.C. Road Jammu (annexure F)" and "Gupta Finance Corporation B.C. Road Jammu (annexure G)". Further, they have placed on record ledger book accounts marked as annexure B (page 13 to 20) indicating the entries made in them in routine by Accountant-cum-cashier Sh. Satish Bali and some entries made in the handwriting of deceased OP No. 2 in his own handwriting or under his direction by Sh. Satish Bali and signed by him and one entry made by OP No. 3. The complainants have appeared as witnesses in support of the allegations made in the complaint and the entries made in the above stated record. Satish Bali and signed by him and one entry made by OP No. 3. The complainants have appeared as witnesses in support of the allegations made in the complaint and the entries made in the above stated record. In addition they have also examined sh. Satish Bali Accountant-cum-Cashier as their witness. The complaint was accompanied by an application wherein interim relief under inherent powers of the Commission was sought on the plea that the complainants have a very strong prima facie case and balance of convenience was also in their favour. They had reasonable apprehension that OPs would dispose of their properties and leave the territorial jurisdiction of the Commission. That the Commission "may issue warrant for their arrest in order to secure their presence and show cause why they should not furnish security for their appearance and properties viz. petrol pump, finance companies and their assets as well as the housing property at Talab Tiloo may be attached. In the alternative they should deposit in the Commission money or other property to answer their claim." On the back page No. l of the above said application our predecessors had ordered that the OPs should maintain status quo in respect of the properties they hold i.e. petrol pump and other properties and finance corporations as well as their house at Talab Tiloo till further orders. The order was of interim nature subject to its confirmation or vacation and the application was posted for 30.10.2005. 4. In response to the notice issued the OPs t filed separate written versions. OP Nos. l&2 at the first instance have taken the objection that complainant No.2 never deposited any amount in M/S Gupta Finance Corporation accounts. However, it is admitted that complainant No. 1 alongwith her son, Prince Mohan Nayyar in the year 1984 had deposited an amount of Rs. 40,000/- as fixed deposit for five years, maturity value whereof in the year 1989, had to be at Rs. 80000/-. After its maturity partial amount was deposited in four different accounts which need not be stated in detail but have been mentioned in para 2. It is further stated that complainant No.2 at the first instance deposited an amount of Rs. 7600/- with M/S Kathua Motor Finance Co. B.C. Road Jammu which was exclusively owned by OP No. 2. 80000/-. After its maturity partial amount was deposited in four different accounts which need not be stated in detail but have been mentioned in para 2. It is further stated that complainant No.2 at the first instance deposited an amount of Rs. 7600/- with M/S Kathua Motor Finance Co. B.C. Road Jammu which was exclusively owned by OP No. 2. That he had been depositing and withdrawing the money at subsequent occasions details whereof have been given and need not to be reproduced here. It is further admitted that an amount of Rs. 109567/- stands deposited in the name of complain ant No. l and her son Prince Mohan Nayyar in M/S Gupta Finance Corporation and complainant No. 2 has no outstanding amount. OP Nos. 3 to 5 were not partners of OP No. l. That petrol pump and transport business has different partners and their management is also different. It is vehemently denied that an amount of Rs. 1989491/- is due to the complainants from M/S Gupta Finance Corporation. Lastly it is admitted that an amount of Rs. 2.00 lacs is due to the complainants and their children and OPs are ready to make payment in easy instalments. Objections were also filed by them for vacation of interim injunction which had been passed on 23.9.2004. 5. OP Nos. 3&5 in their written version have denied to have any link with OP No. l in connection with its business affairs. The complaint is false and concocted and deserves dismissal. 6. OP No. 4 in his written version has contended that he was not partner of OP No. l and as such the complaint is not maintainable against him. That he alongwith OP No. 2 had been living separately and being not a member of joint Hindu family he is not liable to bear the brunt of any liability for reimbursing the complainants on behalf of OP No. l. At the end of para No. 2 of the written version he has stated that OP Nos. 2, 3 &5 have the liability to liquidate the claims of OP No. l. He has also filed objections to the application whereby interim relief was granted by the Commission. 7. 2, 3 &5 have the liability to liquidate the claims of OP No. l. He has also filed objections to the application whereby interim relief was granted by the Commission. 7. Complainant No. 2 though has filed affidavit by way of evidence on 22.7.2007 yet he appeared in the witness box and in his examination-in-chief has stated that somewhere in the year 1984-85 he and complainant No. l had deposited small amounts with late Sh. Kasturi lal Gupta who was the sole owner and manager of Gupta Finance Co. as well as Kathua Motor Finance Co. Bahu Finance Co. Petrol pump business and other allied businesses. He had issued passbooks in the name of his children and had been paying interest @ 18% P. A. with monthly rests. That Kasturi lal Gupta died in the year 1987 and all his above stated movable and immovable properties devolved upon Ops (2 to 5) as his sons. In the year 1996, OP No. 2(deceased) was the managing partner alongwith other brothers and on 31.1.1996 all the previous receipts and passbooks of the deposited amount were taken by him while acting as a representative of other Ops. Sh. Satish Bali had been working in the office situated at the petrol pump premises during the lifetime of Kasturi lal Gupta as Accountant/clerk. That on 31.1.1996 he while acting as Accountant/clerk made the entry in newly the issued pass book at the direction of OP No. 2 being the Managing Director to the effect that "all previous receipts or passbooks issued cancelled entered in this passbook." The entry was exhibited as EXPBD. On 5.2.1996 OP No. 2(deceased) himself in his handwriting and under his signatures made the first entry in that pass book indicating that complainants had outstanding amount of Rs. 397000/-. Thereafter all the deposits being made by the complainants and interest accrued thereon from time to time as well as withdrawals made were entered in the passbook by Accountant/clerk, Sh. Satish Bali on the directions of OPs. OP No. 2 in the capacity of M.D. On 28.4.1997 OP No. 2 made an entry that an amount of Rs.6.00 lacs was the outstanding amount of the complainants, inclusive of interest. This amount had become principal amount for the next month. Signatures of OP No. 2 were exhibited as EXBD/1. Satish Bali on the directions of OPs. OP No. 2 in the capacity of M.D. On 28.4.1997 OP No. 2 made an entry that an amount of Rs.6.00 lacs was the outstanding amount of the complainants, inclusive of interest. This amount had become principal amount for the next month. Signatures of OP No. 2 were exhibited as EXBD/1. A third entry was made on 31.10.2001 by OP No. 2 in his own handwriting in his presence in the office premises of Petrol Pump and he had appended his signatures under that entry, which is marked as EXPBD/2. An amount of Rs. l979027/- was found as principal amount including interest till that date. Because no further space had been left to make any entry in that passbook so the outstanding amount was entered and brought forward in the new passbook of M/S Gupta Finance Corporation. That both corporations, including Bahu Finance Co. owned and run by OPs. That on 6.5.2004 he had a severe heart attack in the High Court premises and was in dire necessity of money for getting treatment in Escort Hospital Delhi. On his request made on 23.3.2003 through complainant No. 1 calculation was made and an amount of Rs. 2398516/- had become payable on 10.5.2004, OP No.3 (Narinder Kumar Gupta) paid an amount of Rs. 3.00 lacs and entry to that effect was made in the passbook by him in his own handwriting. That was the last entry made on the passbook, annexure G of Gupta Finance Corporation B.C. Road Jammu. No entry of any of the passbooks has been disputed by the OPs. One more payment had been made by OP No. 3 to the complainants in the sum of rupees one lac but he had failed to insert the entry in any of the two passbooks. In this manner, an amount of Rs. 1949949/- is recoverable from the OPs alongwith future interest and amount of compensation as claimed by the complainants. 8. In his cross-examination conducted by L.Rs of OP No. 2 he feigned his ignorance to name the finance company of the OPs in which the initial deposits were made by them in the name of their children because of lapse of memory but probalised the name of Kathua Motor Finance Co. 8. In his cross-examination conducted by L.Rs of OP No. 2 he feigned his ignorance to name the finance company of the OPs in which the initial deposits were made by them in the name of their children because of lapse of memory but probalised the name of Kathua Motor Finance Co. That OPs are legal heirs of the deceased Kasturi lal Gupta and they have inherited his movable and immovable properties therefore, they are liable to reimburse the complainants regarding the outstanding liabilities. That copy of the ledger books maintained in the office of OPs had been supplied by the OPs to Sh. Satish Bali who had given the same to him and he attached them with the complaint. He is categorical in stating the fact that he had shown the whole income from all sources in his property statements submitted to his superior authority as well as in the income tax returns. 9. Complainant No. 1 has deposed on affidavit wherein she has corroborated the allegations made in the complaint. In her cross-examination, she identified the last entry made in the passbook EXCN. She further stated that Rs. 3.00 lacs were given to her by OP No. 3 at the instance of other OPs. She has admitted the occasional visits of Accountant/Clerk Sh. Satish Bali at their residence. That during her service career she never submitted her property statements to her authorities but had been filing regular income tax returns in the Income Tax Department showing her all incomes. 10. Sh. Satish Bali witness of the complainants in his deposition has stated that Kasturi lal Gupta owned the business of petrol pump, finance companies and transport companies. That he had been working as Accountant/Cashier with him. Finance companies were being run under the name of Gupta Finance Corporation, Kathua Motor Finance Corporation, and Bahu Tawi Finance Corporation. He had been maintaining the accounts of all the abovesaid three finance companies as well as transport business and petrol pump business. Initially the complainants had opened their deposits in the name of their children, receipts whereof were being issued against each deposit. The OPs for their benefits used to transfer the deposits of one company to another finance company but receipts were being issued to the passbook holders. Those receipts were either being issued by him or by OP No. 2(deceased). Initially the complainants had opened their deposits in the name of their children, receipts whereof were being issued against each deposit. The OPs for their benefits used to transfer the deposits of one company to another finance company but receipts were being issued to the passbook holders. Those receipts were either being issued by him or by OP No. 2(deceased). After the death of Kasturi lal Gupta his business was taken over by OPs who are his sons and he continued to work as cashier/clerk with them. First entry on the passbook of Kathua Motor Finance Co. (annexure F) was made by him on the instructions of OPs and in presence of OP No. 2. The entry was to the effect that all previous receipts on passbooks issued stands cancelled. Cancelled receipts and passbooks were retained by OP No. 2 who was the Managing Director of the finance companies. Entry ESPBD was in his handwriting and is correct. That on 01.2.1996 an amount of Rs. 397000/- was found payable to the complainants by the OPs and that entry was made in the passbook of Kathua Motor Finance Co. That entry had been exhibited as EXPBD/1 and it was in the handwriting of OP No. 2. He recognizes the signatures of the deceased Bushan Kumar Gupta. He admits that all other entries were made in this passbook by him under the direction of OPs. Those entries were exhibited as EXSB. At the close of passbook of Kathua Motor Finance Co. on 19.11.2001 an amount of Rs. 1979027/- inclusive of interest was found payable to the complainants. Entry EXPWBD/1 of Gupta Finance Corporation was in the handwriting of deceased Bushan Kumar Gupta under his signatures and he recognizes his signatures. He had directed him to maintain that cashbook later on and the last entry is also in his handwriting. He further states that all the entries made in the ledger book are correct and they tally with the entries made in the passbook. In his cross-examination he denied that his services were terminated but stated that on his free will he had left the employment of the OPs. OPs had started quarrelling with each other regarding deposits and withdrawal made by the depositors. In his cross-examination he denied that his services were terminated but stated that on his free will he had left the employment of the OPs. OPs had started quarrelling with each other regarding deposits and withdrawal made by the depositors. OP No. 2(deceased) had handed over copies of the ledger books to the complainants and they are annexed with the complaint He had been authorized by the OPs to make entries in the ledger books as well as in the passbooks. 11. OP No. 4, Surinder Kumar Gupta, has deposed on affidavit and supported the stand taken by him in the written version. In the cross-examination he has admitted that his father, Kasturi lal Gupta, had during his life time been running the business of petrol pump, transport and finance companies. Petrol pump was in the name of Kasturi lal Gupta and transport companies were named as Kathua Motor Companies. Finance companies were named as Gupta Finance companies. He showed his ignorance how many finance companies were being run. He does not own any link with the finance business. He showed his ignorance about the business mentioned as "allied business" in the partnership deed which was entered after the death of Kasturi lal Gupta. He admits that all the OPs have inherited a house of Kasturi lal Gupta situate at Canal Road where all were living together at the time of his death. He has purchased his separate house in Apna Vihar in the year 1988-89. He denied the signatures of deceased brother OP No. 2 on both the passbooks which were shown to him in the open Commission. 12. OP No. 3, Sh. Narinder Kumar Gupta, gave his statement on 21.7.2007 on oath that he did not want to produce any evidence in rebuttal. However, he admits that he submitted form A to the Registrar of firms which shows that only OP No. 2 was the partner of the firms and not the other OPs. Heard the arguments. 13. Mr. Harbans Lal, Advocate for the complainants has argued that after the death of Kasturi Lal Gupta, who was the sole owner of finance business, transport business and petrol pump business, his legal heirs namely OPs, alongwith his widow Smt. Santosh Gupta, inherited those properties alongwith credits and liabilities. That on 01.1.1988 they executed partnership deed wherein it is reiterated that the business of family partnership of Sh. That on 01.1.1988 they executed partnership deed wherein it is reiterated that the business of family partnership of Sh. Kasturi Lal shall continue to deal with petrol pump business, transport business or such other allied business/businesses as may be agreed upon by the parties from time to time. This statement is incorporated in para 2 of the partnership deed. Allied business signifies inclusiveness of finance business carried out by the finance corporations such as Gupta Finance Corporation, Kathua Motor Corporation and Bahu Tawi Finance Corporation etc. OP No. l namely, M/S Gupta Finance Corporation had been registered with Registrar of Firms under No. 2074/RF/3777 dated 14.9.1983. The documentary evidence has established the fact that all the transactions made with OP No. l by the complainants in their names as well as in the name of their children had been recorded and then carried forward in the records of the accounts being made with the consent and on the directions of OPs 2 to 5 in the ordinary course of business. Sh. Satish Bali who had all along been maintaining the accounts during the life time of Kasturi lal Gupta has stated that the entries were made on the direction of OPs. Entry EXPBD is to the effect that "all previous receipts or passbooks issued cancelled and entered in this passbook". The entry was made by Sh. Satish Bali. First entry of accounts made on the passbook annexure F is dated 5.2.1996 and has been proved to be in the handwriting of OP No. 2(deceased) under his signatures and exhibited as EXPBD/1. The last entry of the passbook was entered in Gupta Finance company's passbook, annexure G, in the handwriting and under the signatures of OP No. 2(deceased), showing a credit of Rs. 1979027/- due to the complainants. The entry has been exhibited as EXPBD/2. Last entry showing credit of the complainants on 22.3.2003 is in the sum of Rs. 2363070/-. Below this entry OP No. 3 (Narinder Gupta) had made an entry on 22.3.2003 "Out of deposit from Sh. Bushan Gupta partner of M/S Gupta Finance Corporation" a sum of Rs. 3.00 lacs was paid to the depositors and this entry has been proved in the handwriting of OP No. 3. Complainant Sh. B.D. Nayyar and his witness Sh. Satish Bali are the eye witnesses of the entries and have proved them. Bushan Gupta partner of M/S Gupta Finance Corporation" a sum of Rs. 3.00 lacs was paid to the depositors and this entry has been proved in the handwriting of OP No. 3. Complainant Sh. B.D. Nayyar and his witness Sh. Satish Bali are the eye witnesses of the entries and have proved them. The entries made in the passbooks tally with the entries made in the ledger book, true copy whereof has been placed on record. At the last leg of his arguments, he has urged that in order to dodge the Income Tax authorities for the payment of proper income tax, the OPs had floated different finance corporations under the names and styles stated above and the plea taken by OPs that they have nothing to do with the business of Kathua Motor Finance Co. and Gupta Finance co. is an escape route to ward off the outstanding liability. The OPs have inherited all the properties of his late father Kasturi lal and participated in the continuation of finance business of Kathua Motor Finance Corporation and Gupta Finance Corporation as such they are under legal and moral obligation to discharge his debts besides outstanding created by themselves. 14. The OPs are found to have contested the case in a very clumsy manner. At the first instance, Mr. S.K. Anand Advocate had appeared for OPs. Nos. 1 & 2 but after some time he absented himself. Sh. Pawan Kumar Maini advocate had been representing OP Nos. 3&5 and Sh. J.R. Arora, advocate had been appearing for OP No. 4. After the death of Op No. 2 his legal heirs engaged M/S B.S. Salathia and Munish Chopra as their advocates. After the proceedings were concluded and case was posted for hearing, Mr. Baldev Singh advocate filed his power of attorney on 3.2.2009 on behalf of OP Nos. 3 to 5. Prior to that the parties had availed opportunity for affecting compromise. On 13.8.2009 arguments of the counsel of the complainants were heard and Mr. Baldev Singh was also heard on behalf of OPs Nos. 3 to 5. Time was granted for the production of Mr. B.S. Salathia advocate to argue the case. On 17.8.2009 Mr. 3 to 5. Prior to that the parties had availed opportunity for affecting compromise. On 13.8.2009 arguments of the counsel of the complainants were heard and Mr. Baldev Singh was also heard on behalf of OPs Nos. 3 to 5. Time was granted for the production of Mr. B.S. Salathia advocate to argue the case. On 17.8.2009 Mr. B.S. Salathia advocate had appeared on behalf of L.Rs of Op No. 2(deceased) and made a request that the case may be adjourned as his clients are making further efforts to settle the claim out side the Commission. This effort ended in damp squib and no body entered appearance on their behalf to advance the arguments. 15. Mr. Baldev Singh advocate though appeared at the fag end of the case i.e. on 3.2.2009 when the right to lead the evidence stood closed, yet he made a feeble attempt to make out a case for his clients to the effect that they had no direct or casual connection with the finance business which was being carried on by their father without realizing the fact that the sheet-anchor of the case of the complainants from the very beginning had been that all his business was of continuous nature being carried out by OPs and to that effect partnership deed was executed by them, alongwith their mother which had been drafted by one Uttam Singh Bedi advocate and attested by two marginal witnesses. Though it is unregistered partnership deed yet for carrying on the family business it had the relevancy. Photostat copy of the said partnership deed was already on the record and the production of certified copies of three partnership deeds dated 29.7.1982, 6.4.1984 and 11.11.1987, which make no mention about the conduct of finance business of the two finance companies in question namely Kathua Motor Finance company and Gupta Finance Corporation, was an exercise in futility. Making a base on those irrelevant partnership deeds, he started his heated arguments by resorting to mud-slinking tactics on the fair working of the Commission by making wild allegation that his clients had been treated by the Commission in a biased manner from the very beginning when the complaint was presented on 23.9.2004 because on 24.9.2004 their properties were attached in an ex-parte manner without hearing them. That Commission was so much prejudiced and biased against them that original order is missing from the record as only attested true copy of that order is attached at the end of the record file. The allegation pertains to the conduct of our learned predecessors. He did not spare ourselves too and pointed accusing finger that we have underlined some record of the case, according to him, which power we do not have and it depicts our biased attitude also towards his clients. In order to buttress his oral arguments he on 22.9.2009 filed written arguments and has specifically mentioned that on the application made by the complainants under Order 38 Rules 1&2 CPC the Commission issued direction on 24.9.2009, (in fact on 24.9.2004), the original copy whereof is not available on record and that "Hon'ble Commission had no power to pass interim direction as specifically held by the Apex Court invariably but in flouting the direction of the Hon'ble Court Hon'ble Commission to favour the complainant who seems to be an influential person passed order which is illegal and contravention to the direction laid down by the Apex Court. The answering respondents with due respect have no hesitation to state that they have been condemned unheard at many occasions." This allegation is factually incorrect, made in a scandalous and irresponsible manner, without caring to read the record because our learned predecessors had on the back page of the application made under Order 38 Rules 2&3 CPC, passed that order which was of only an interim nature, and application had been posted for 30.10.2004 for further proceedings. Record reveals that OPs 1&2 had filed objections, for the vacation of that order. Not only that, OP No. 4 also had filed objections, supported by affidavit. The remaining two OPs namely, No. 3&5 did not file any objections and that means they had acquiesced. OPs 1, 2&4 had also impliedly acquiesced because they took no step to get the order vacated on merits. He has failed to show us any law laid down by the Apex Court that a judicial Forum has no control to underline the important relevant portion of the record. His other argument is that no documentary proof has been annexed with the complaint to show any connection of his clients with M/ s Gupta Finance corporation business. He has failed to show us any law laid down by the Apex Court that a judicial Forum has no control to underline the important relevant portion of the record. His other argument is that no documentary proof has been annexed with the complaint to show any connection of his clients with M/ s Gupta Finance corporation business. The argument stands falsified firstly on the production of partnership deed executed on 1.1.1988, as discussed above, and secondly runs contrary to the admission made by OP No. 2 in his written version that OPs 2, 3&5 have the liability to liquidate the claims of OP No. l and that complainant No. l alongwith her son Prince Mohan are only entitled to the total liability of rupees two lacs. That liability may be liquidated by easy instalments. Not only that, the evidence of complainant No. 2 and Satish Bali, given on oath, is of a consistent nature to prove the fact that OP No. 3 had made entry of rupees three lacs which were paid to complainant No. 1 in the passbook issued in the name of Gupta Finance corporation. The counsel has also assailed the testimony of Sh. Satish Bali by stating that he was a planted witness by the complainants as his affidavit and the affidavits of the complainants bear the signature of Sh. Randhir Singh Nazir of Munsiff Court and they are attested by the same Oath Commissioner on the same date. On this factual background which is of trifling nature, the counsel has played to the gallery to please his clients and intimidate the Commission to fall in line with his thinking by adversely commenting that at every step complainant No. 2 was favoured by the Commission. His written allegation reads:- "Complainant is so influential person that although Mr. Bali's affidavit has been filed but again examination-in-chief has been recorded by the Commission without giving any reason why it has been done so." 16. He has made the allegation in an unprofessional manner of an advocate, without reading the contents of order dated 18.7.2007 recorded in the proceedings that statement of Satish Bali witness was recorded in presence of counsel of OPs giving the parties opportunity of cross-examining him but no objection was taken at that time. Moreover, no harm has been caused by recording his statement despite the fact that his affidavit was already on record. Moreover, no harm has been caused by recording his statement despite the fact that his affidavit was already on record. The counsel who was representing his clients had cross-examined the witness and the presence of Mr. Baldev Singh Advocate, cannot have the effect of changing the nature of judicial proceedings, who has simply tried to interpose himself at the belated stage without having any knowledge of the mandate of Section 11 of the Act which prescribes the procedure to be followed by consumer fora on receipt of the complaint. It is settled proposition of law that the procedure followed for dispensation of justice is simple and informal and it can be stated that proceedings are not adversarial but inquisitorial. The counsel has referred to the affidavit of Sh. B.D. Nayyar complainant No. 2 by stating that "he has not said a single whisper against the answering respondent except payment of Rs. 3.00 lacs by respondent No. 3 has also said that under what circumstances he made payment when complainant No. 2 needed very badly and complainant No. l had approached him for help for operation purpose. This payment was made on humanitarian ground." This is factually incorrect submission because in para 15 of his affidavit complainant No. 2 has stated that demand was being made for the payment of the whole due amount but only partial amount of Rs. 3.00 lacs was made and the payment of the remaining amount was assured in future. 17. Complainant No. 1's evidence on affidavit also falsifies this argument. Regaling the evidence of Satish Bali witness it is alleged by him that:- "He played at the hands of the complainants after his termination of service from Gupta Finance Corporation as he was tampering with documents and unauthorisedly issuing documents by making false/fabricated entries in the same." 18. Sh. Satish Bali had come in the witness box and was cross-examined by the OPs. No question of such a nature was asked to him to discredit his testimony on the basis of tampering particular record when photo copy of the passbook annexure G was available on the record of the complaint. Page 160 of the paper book shows that first entry made on 31.10.2001 on the passbook of Gupta Finance Corporation had been brought-forward by OP No. (deceased) in his own handwriting and under his signatures. Similarly, entry made in Kathua Motor Finance Co. Page 160 of the paper book shows that first entry made on 31.10.2001 on the passbook of Gupta Finance Corporation had been brought-forward by OP No. (deceased) in his own handwriting and under his signatures. Similarly, entry made in Kathua Motor Finance Co. passbook which starts from 1.2.1996 showing forwarding amount as Rs. 397000/- in the names of the complainants after cancelling all receipts were in the handwriting of deceased OP No. 2 (Bhushan Kumar). These entries tally with the entries made in the ledger book at page 136 and they are in the handwriting of Satish Bali witness. How it can be said that any record had been fabricated. 19. After scanning the record thoroughly and carefully we are of the considered opinion that the arguments advanced by Mr. Baldev Singh Advocate are nothing more than the ravings and ratings of a frustrated man who stands exposed and discredited. Record reveals that OPs had been carrying on the finance business in a fraudulent manner and as disclosed by witness of the complaints, Sh. Satish Bali Accountant that such a method was adoped to doge the income tax authorities. They had floated four finance companies of different names, as stated above, but it is proved from the evidence of this case that they had maintained one ledger book but issued two pass books annexure F and annexure G at different times in favour of the complainants. Entries made in the passbook of Kathua Motor Finance Co. were switched on the passbook of Gupta Finance Corporation but no mention of this fact had been made in the ledger book. Such conduct amounts to carrying on unfair trade and practice under the Consumer Protection Act. The oral and documentary evidence has established that the amount claimed by the complainants is due to them. There is clear documentary evidence in the form of EXPBD, which is an entry dated 31.1.1996 made by Sh. Satish Bali witness while acting as Accountant of the finance company, on the direction of OP No. 2 who was then the Managing Director of OP No. l. Entry EXBD/2 is dated 5.2.1996 in the handwriting of OP No. 2 whereby liability to the tune of Rs. 39700/- was admitted. Satish Bali witness while acting as Accountant of the finance company, on the direction of OP No. 2 who was then the Managing Director of OP No. l. Entry EXBD/2 is dated 5.2.1996 in the handwriting of OP No. 2 whereby liability to the tune of Rs. 39700/- was admitted. He had again made the entry, EXBD/1, in the record on 28.9.1997 as Managing Director of OP No. l and admitted the liability of the complainants in the sum of Rs. 6.00 lacs. Third entry is dated 31.10.2001 in the handwriting of OP No. 2, exhibited as EXBD/2, which shows that he had admitted the liability in the amount of Rs. 1979027/-. This amount was brought-forward in the new passbook of Gupta Finance Corporation (annexure G) and on 10.5.2004 OP No. 3 made entry in his handwriting regarding payment of Rs. 3.00 lacs to the complainants. In the presence of such evidence of impeccable nature, Advocate of OPs 3 to 5, Mr. Baldev Singh, had switched gear from persuasive advocacy to derogatory remarks in the fond hope that such practice would succeed and the Commission would be brow-beaten into submissions, without realising the fact that Judges are made of sterner stuff and the Commission has all the trappings of a Court to save its honour and dignity. Oral and written attacks made on the working of the Commission are so disparaging in character and derogatory to the dignity of the Commission that it would vitally shake the confidence of the public and the aspersions made in the open Commission had the effect of scandalizing the working in such a way as to create distrust in people's mind and in fair confidence to believe in the Commission. Undoubtedly, complainant No. 2 is a retired District & Sessions Judge but he has no influence on us as well as on our predecessors. He has fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution to be treated equally under law. His statutory rights recognized under the Act have been violated by OPs by carrying unfair trade and practice and withholding his lawful payment, which amount to deficiency in rendering service. In case, the situations created by Mr. He has fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution to be treated equally under law. His statutory rights recognized under the Act have been violated by OPs by carrying unfair trade and practice and withholding his lawful payment, which amount to deficiency in rendering service. In case, the situations created by Mr. Baldev Singh were to be countenanced the advocates who can cow down the Judges and make them fall in line with their wishes by threats of character assassination and persecution will be preferred by litigants to the advocates who are mindful of professional ethics and believe in maintaining the decorum of the Court. Mr. Baldev Singh is found ignorant about his professional ethics as he has advanced arguments by twisting the facts of the case in his favour and made false allegations against the fair working of the Commission. He has the licence to argue the case to assist a Court of law for the administration of justice but he is found to have tried to pollute the fair course of justice considering himself above law. While being in the system he has indulged in brickbatting on the edifice of the Commission. Prima facie, his advocacy amounts to professional mis-conduct and commission of the offence of contempt of court, of which the cognizance can be taken. But his past accredition is not found loaded with any such bad incident, so we refrain ourselves from issuing show cause notice to him. But his conduct, which is found below the dignity of professional ethics, is reprehensible and requires correctional approach, in case he has to remain a member of noble profession of advocacy which is part and parcel of the system of administering justice. These remarks, though painful, are essential and necessary for the just decision of the case and would be taken care of in case any professional depravity is shown in the future. 20. In view of the observations made above, we hold, without any manner of doubt, that the complainants have proved that an amount of Rs. 1949949/- is due to them because in examination-in-chief Sh. B.D. Nayyar complainant No. 2 has claimed only that much amount instead of the amount claimed in the complaint. We, therefore, allow the complaint and direct the OPs to make payment of Rs. 1949949/- is due to them because in examination-in-chief Sh. B.D. Nayyar complainant No. 2 has claimed only that much amount instead of the amount claimed in the complaint. We, therefore, allow the complaint and direct the OPs to make payment of Rs. 1949949/- to the complainants alongwith interest @ 8% P. A. from the date of filing the complaint, till final payment is made. The complainants are also entitled to litigation charges in the amount of Rs. 8000/-. The liability of the OPs is joint and several to the extent they have inherited the property of late Kasturi lal Gupta, inclusive of the properties of finance corporations in question. The complaint is consigned to records.