K.K. Khajuria vs D.D. Batra

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 10.07.2008 passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 1805/SC/2003 - K.K. Khajuria Vs. D.D. Batra and Ors. by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/respondent no. 1 deposited Rs.1,20,463/ - with OP NO. 1/Respondent No. 2 under different schemes. It was further alleged that OP No. 2, 3 & 4/Petitioner/Respondent No. 3 and 4 are Directors/Officers/Employees of OP No.1. Inspite of request, OP has not returned money deposited by complainant. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP No. 1, 2 & 4 have not filed written statement before District Forum. OP No. 3 resisted complaint and submitted that he was only an employee in OP Company and was not getting any benefits from the various schemes of the company. It was further alleged that he along with 400 depositors filed criminal case against OP No. 1 and has no concern with refund of the money and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed OPs jointly and severally to pay Rs.1,20,463/ - to the complainant with 18% p.a. interest and further awarded Rs.20,000/ - for mental agony and Rs.2,000/ - as costs. Appeal filed by petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed. None appeared for respondent nos. 1 to 4.

HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused record.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned District Forum committed error in fastening liability on petitioner as he was only employee of the Company and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal, hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. Perusal of record reveals that complainant deposited money with OP No. 1 and petitioner was only an employee of the Company. It appears that OP No. 1 is in liquidation and Official Liquidator has been appointed. Learned District forum held petitioner responsible as deposit certificate issued by Company bears signatures of petitioner working on responsible post. Learned State Commission while dismissing appeal observed as under: '''' ...It was expected that while joining the company as one of the officers of the company the appellant should have exercised his reasonable discretion and in due course he should have appraised and assessed as to whether it was beneficial for him to be the employee of the said company which he has not done. Thus, on that score the appellant does not deserve any leniency. It was a clear case, thus, of a joint and several liability of all who have been ordered by the learned District Forum to make the payment. We find consequently no substance in the appeal ''''.

ADMITTEDLY , petitioner was employee of the company and by no stretch of imagination he can be held responsible for refunding amount deposited by complainant with OP No. 1Company. A person cannot be held responsible merely because he was employee of the company at the time of depositing amount. Merely because deposit receipt bears signatures of petitioner who was employee of the company cannot be held responsible for refund of money which has gone in the account of OP No. 1. Had this money been utilized by petitioner, petitioner would have been held responsible. Perusal of record further reveals that petitioner along with other persons lodged FIR against the company and in such circumstances; petitioner cannot be held responsible to the complainant for refund of money. Learned State Commission wrongly observed that while joining the company petitioner should have exercised reasonable discretion and assess as to whether it was beneficial for him to be employee of the company. Petitioner is not claiming salary from the company in this case and such observation is of no significance. If a person purchases ticket from the window of State Transport Corporation and travels in the bus and sustains injury on account of accident, I do not think that clerk who issued ticket can be held responsible for damages to the passenger. In the same way merely because petitioner was employee of the company who failed to return the money to the depositors, he cannot be held responsible for refund of money and impugned order is liable to set aside.

CONSEQUENTLY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 10.7.2008 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No. 1805/SC/2003 - Sri K.K. Khajuria Vs. Sri D.D. Batra & Ors. and order of District Forum dated 24.1.2003 in Complaint No. 419/2001 allowing complaint to the extent of petitioner is set aside with no order as to costs.