I recently had a chance to read the Judgement of District Consumer Court Nawanshahr , Rajwinder singh v. Canara Bank & Others.

The employees of Bank are also named as Defendants by Plantiff. The Plaintiff himself is residing in England and filed complaint through his father. Facts of complaint are: The Plaintiff alleges that some one fraudently with drawns money from his bank account. Bank says that Plaintiff has withdrawn the money as they have his signature on withdrawn form. Bank did sign attestation from forensic labaratory and signatures were confirmed. At time of withdrawn of money, the plaintiff was in India and filed complaint with Consumer court through Father after 2 years of transcation when he left for England.

Commission members are writing in Judgement that Defendants have failed to give proof that Plaintiff is in England. But in fact Plaintiff Rajwinder was not present during case filling, on any hearing and during evidence. How defendant can prove that plaintiff is in India or Else, when that person is not before Tribunal.

Secondly on reading the Judgement, the Commission members are not explaining how Employees are liable to pay with Bank. Members should have taken in consideration that in Employer -Employee relationship, the work done by employee in good faith and in general course of duties, except fraudulent transcations, the employees are not liable in person. Their Employer is liable to any loss for work done in general course of employment duties by Employee.

In summary or conclusion paragraph, the Commission members are saying defendants are liable to pay money to plaintiff.

In judgement, No share of employee is calculated and why they are liable. No clear indication for defendant.
I am surprised how justice is done in India without investigating facts provided and ignoring natural Justice.