GENERAL MOTORS NOW DEFUNCT Vs. SWARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) THE State Commission had to face an appellant, who despite availing number of opportunities to produce the original voucher indicating refund of Rs. 1,66,000 to Nasib Singh in cash, has failed to produce the original voucher despite adjournment and ultimately the State Commission had to close its evidence. In the reply, it was alleged to be signed and not thumb marked by Nasib Singh. But only photocopy of the voucher was produced and not the original one. Original has been withheld for the reasons best known to them. Even before this Commission, original voucher has not been produced.

(3.) THE petitioner had put forward fantastically cooked up story of allegedly giving a loan of Rs. 22,500 to Nasib Singh, who required the money to be deposited as marginal money for obtaining the draft from State Bank of Patiala, Saha, Distt. Ambala as per para 2 of the affidavit filed before the State Commission. Voucher, which is shown, is dated 12. 5. 1995. This is an unusual claim of giving loan to a purchaser. The account book also was not produced.