LAWS(NCD)-2001-11-35

P L MIGLANI Vs. G P O

Decided On November 22, 2001
P.L.MIGLANI Appellant
V/S
G.P.O. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is by opposite party No. 2 against the order of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission passed in appeal by opposite party No. 1-GPO wherein State Commission held that both the GPO as well as the petitioner-Miglani would be liable to pay to the complainant the amount awarded by the District Forum. But then the District Forum had not awarded any amount against the petitioner. There was, therefore, no question of the petitioner-opposite party No. 2 filing any appeal before the State Commission, yet on appeal filed by the GPO - opposite party No. 1, the petitioner has also been held liable to make the payment.

(2.) Complainant was having recurring deposit from his salary in the GPO which was deducted by the employer-DTC. Petitioner was made incharge to see that recurring deposits were made to the GPO by the petitioner as well as other employees of DTC. However, it appears that when amount was sought to be withdrawn from the GPO there was objection that signatures did not tally with that of the depositor. On identification made by the petitioner the amount was allowed to be withdrawn. In fact as the allegation goes, there was a conspiracy between the petitioner and the person withdrawing the amount who impersonated for the depositor. Since GPO refused to make the payment of the amount so sought to be withdrawn, complaint was filed by the complainant (respondent No. 2 herein). District Forum held GPO to be liable in any case.

(3.) Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, GPO filed appeal before the State Commission which as narrated above, was dismissed but at the same time it was held that petitioner would also be liable. We do not think State Commission was right. Whatever may be the fraudulent conduct of the petitioner he certainly could not be made liable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. We, therefore, set aside the order of the State Commission and allow this revision petition. There shall be no order as to costs. Revision Petition dismissed.