Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Anil Srivastava, J
Bajaj Capital Limited – Appellant
Versus
Vijay Tak – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenging the order dated 9.1.2017. (Para 1) |
| 2. complainants invested in fixed deposits and sought damages for non-payment. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. petitioner argues lack of liability and intent. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. state commission dismisses the appeal for lack of merit. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. judgment clarifies liability principles regarding agency. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 6. court affirms agents are not personally liable for defaults. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
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 Depo
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
