Agents cannot be held personally liable for their principal's defaults unless specifically agreed; agents' roles are limited to their contractual obligations.

1. This Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner / Opposite Party No. 2 against Respondents / Complainants and Opposite Parties Nos. 1 & 3 challenging the impugned Order dated 9.1.2017 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur, Rajasthan, in First Appeal bearing No. 890 of 2016. vide such order, the State Commission dismissed the Appeal at the stage of admission while upholding the Order dated 30.3.2016 passed by the District Consumer Protection Forum, Ajmer, in Complaint No. 19/2015.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Complainants had invested Rs.5,50,000 with the Opposite Party No. 1 through Opposite Party No. 2 in a Fixed Deposit Scheme of 36 month sunder Cumulative of Fixed Deposit Scheme (B) of the Opposite Party No. 1 vide receipt Nos. 5413 to 5417 on 3.6.2011 and receipt Nos. 10641 to 10642 on 11.8.2011. The payment of 5 FDRs matured on 2.6.2014 amounting to Rs.4,27,000 and payment of 2 FDRs matured on10.8.2014 amounting to Rs.3,56,440. The Complainant approached the Opposite Party No. 2 several times for payment of maturity amounts. However, the employees of the Opposite Party No. 2 did not give any satisfactory reply and kept lingering the matter. Consequently, the Complainants raised their complaints by Emails with the Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2. The Complainants also informed the Opposite Party No. 3 about the conduct of the Opposite Party No.1. However, no proceedings were initiated by them. The Complainants also served a Legal Notice dated 30.9.2014. Thereafter, the Complaint was filed before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the Opposite Parties in not making payment to the Complainants on time and seeking payment of Rs.4,27,728 along with interest @ 18% p.a. from 2.6.2014, and for payment of Rs.3,56,440 along with interest @18% p.a. from 10.8.2014; apart from Rs.2,00,000 for mental agony and Rs.10,000 as cost of notice and suit.

3. The Ld. District Forum in its order dated 30.3.2016 noted that the Opposite Parties neither appeared before the Forum nor replied to the Complaint. Consequently, they were proceeded against on 17.3.2015.

4. Hence, vide Order dated 30.3.2016, the Ld. District Forum allowed the Complaint in view of statements and documents produced by the Complainants before Forum, and in absence of any rebuttal by the Opposite Parties, holding the act of Opposite Parties of non - payment of FDR maturity amount to Complainants as negligence and deficiency in service. The District Forum held that the Complainants are entitled to Rs.7,84,168 along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of maturity till its payment; Rs.2,000 as compensation and Rs.2,000 as costs of the Complaint / Litigation.

5. The Opposite Party No. 2 claimed to have come to know about the aforesaid ex parte Order on 2.4.2016 only from the Email sent by the Complainants. Consequently an application under Order IX R.13 read with S.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the Opposite Party No. 2 before the Ld. District Forum for recalling / setting aside of its Orders dated 17.3.2015 and 30.3.2016. However, the said Application was dismissed by the Ld. District Forum vide Order dated 1.6.2016. The grounds raised in the Application were that the Opposite Party never received any information from its Counsel regarding the said case, and the Opposite Party No. 2 was of the belief that a positive proceeding is being carried out by its Counsel. The Opposite Party No. 2 only got to know about the