NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/1984/2008

J.R. FINANCE LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

DALJIT SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

MR. RAJINDER PAL SINGH

04 Jul 2008

ORDER

Date of Filing: 29 Apr 2008

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHI.Revision Petition(RP) No. RP/08/1984
(Against the Order dated 25/02/2008 in Appeal No. 511/2002 of the State Commission Chandigarh)
1. J.R. FINANCE LTD.RESIDENT OF 14, ARJAN NAGAR, JALANDHARPUNJAB ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. DALJIT SINGHRESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. B - 17/371, MATA RANI CHOWK, PREM GARH, HOSHIARPURPUNJAB ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HONORABLE MR. JUSTICE M.B. SHAH ,PRESIDENTHONORABLE MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI RAO ,MEMBER
For the Appellant :MR. RAJINDER PAL SINGH
For the Respondent :

Dated : 04 Jul 2008
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

 Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner. In our view, impugned order passed by the State Commission, cannot be said, in any way, illegal and erroneous because admittedly on record the Complainants have produced the Fixed Deposit Receipts duly signed by the authorized representative of the Petitioner Company. However, Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner contended that one, Jaskirat Singh who was husband of the Branch Manager of the Petitioner Company had written a letter that the amounts even though he has received from the Complainants but he has not deposited it with the Petitioner Company. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted
 
 
..2..
 
that the criminal proceedings are pending against Jaskirat Singh. For this purpose, reliance is placed on the affidavit of one Raj Karan Kashyap, Chartered Accountants who was the Auditor of the Company. 
          In our view, if the employee of the Company has mis-appropriated the amounts, the Complainants/depositors are not required to suffer. It would be open to the Petitioner to recover the amount from its employee. Hence, these Revision Petitions are dismissed.
 


......................JM.B. SHAHPRESIDENT
......................RAJYALAKSHMI RAOMEMBER