ORDER
Rajyalakshmi Rao, Member
1. All these revision petitions arise out of a common order passed by the State Commission, Delhi on 16.8.2002. The facts and briefs are:
That the Revision Petitioner invested certain moneys with the respondent Company No. 1, M/s. Hoffland Share Shoppe Ltd. and others in May 1997. The revision petitioner was given by respondent No. 1 post-dated cheques for repayment of the principal amount along with interest. In November 1997, the respondent No. 1 informed by way of a public notice to all investors, not to present those post-dated cheques but to approach them for getting fresh cheques. However, no fresh cheques were given in spite of repeated visits and written requests. When the cheques already given presented for payment, the bank returned the same with the remark “account closed”. The revision petitioner/complainant approached the District Forum on 20th May, 2000 alleging fraud, breach of trust and deficiency of service on the part of respondent No. 1 and its Directors. The District Forum ordered on 21st May, 2002 that respondent No. 1 and No. 3 should repay the principal amount plus interest at 12% from 14.5.1998 till the date of payment.
2. There are seven respondents in this case. Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 were Directors of the respondent No. 1 Company. Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 were employees of the respondent No. 1 company. The District Forum held that the respondent No. 2 resigned from the respondent No. 1 company on 29.11.1997 and respondent No. 4 resigned on 1.10.1997, that respondent No. 5 is paralysed since March 1996 and his mental faculty is impaired and the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 are merely employees of the firm. Therefore, the District Forum held that the complaint qua respondents 2,4,5,6 and 7 merits rejection. Effectively, therefore the order has been passed against respondent No. 1 company and respondent No. 3 Brij Bhushan Sharma, who is described as Chairman and Managing Director of M/s. Hoffland Share Shoppe Ltd. Group of Companies. The District Forum also ordered that the complainant should pay costs of Rs. 200 for having wrongly impleaded respondent Nos. 2, 4, 6 and 7. Aggrieved by this, the complainant appealed to the Delhi State Commission which by its order on 16.8.2002 dismissed the appeals holding that they are devoid of any substance.
4. It is argued before us on behalf of the revision petitioner that respondent Nos. 2 and 4 were important Directors of the respondent Company No. 1 and they were fully involved with the fraudulent collection of moneys. Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 also are important office-bearers of the company. The lower Court did not apply a judicial mind in not fixing any responsibility on them was the argument made by the revision petitioner. Respondent No. 3, the only individual on whom the responsibility was fixed, is in jail and it is difficult for the revision petitioner to execute the District Forum’s order.
5. We have gone through the case papers and heard the arguments. The District Forum has passed a well reasoned order in coming to its conclusion. In a revision petition it is not necessary to go into the facts of the case where a concurrent finding has been given by the District Forum and the State Commission unles there is a miscarriage of justice. There is no legal infirmity or a jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission for us to exercise our jurisdiction under the revision petition Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The revision petitioner should try to execute the order of the District Forum and in case a very difficulty of such execution, should approach the District Forum for necessary relief. As such we see no reason to interfere and the revision petitions are accordingly dismissed.