ORDER Mr. Justice K.S. Gupta, Presiding Member—In this revision, challenge is to the order dated 26.7.2004 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh dismissing appeal against the order dated 24.10.2002 of a District Forum whereby petitioner/opposite party No. 3 was directed to pay maturity amount of Rs. 1 lakh each to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 with interest. 2. Respondent No. 2 is the wife of respondent No. 1. Complaint was jointly filed by them before the District Forum, inter alia, alleging that they had deposited Rs. 50,000/- each on 9.9.1996 with the petitioner for which FDR Nos. 590 and 591 dated 10.9.1996 for a period of three years were issued. Double the amount of the FDRs was to be paid on maturity. After FDRs matured on 9.9.1999, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 visited the office of petitioner on a number of occasions but payment of matured amount was avoided on one ground or the other. 3. Legal notice sent on 2.12.1999 did not evoke any response. Complaint filed for recovery of matured amount with compensation was contested by the petitioner. It was alleged that respondent No. 4/opposite party No. 1 was not an employee of petitioner-company, FDRs in question were allegedly issued by respondent No. 3/opposite party No. 2 in collusion with respondent No. 4 without depositing their amounts with petitioner-company. Liability to pay the amounts with petitioner-company. Liability to pay the amounts of the FDRs was denied. 4. Submission advanced by Mr. Vikas Mahajan for petitioner was that N.S. Dhillon, respondent No. 3 was a manager of petitioner-company and he did not have power to appoint respondent No. 4 as Executive, Development of petitioner. Respondent No. 3 had not deposited the amounts of FDRs in question with petitioner-company nor those seem to have been issued by him. Our attention was invited to the affidavit of respondent No. 4 (copy, at pp. 89-90), appointment letter (copy at p. 95) and certificate (copy at p. 96). It is not in dispute that respondent No. 3 was the authorized signatory of petitioner-company. In the said affidavit it is averred that two FDRs in question were issued by respondent No. 3 under his signatures in favour of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 89-90), appointment letter (copy at p. 95) and certificate (copy at p. 96). It is not in dispute that respondent No. 3 was the authorized signatory of petitioner-company. In the said affidavit it is averred that two FDRs in question were issued by respondent No. 3 under his signatures in favour of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. In this backdrop controversy in regard to respondent No. 3 having no authority to appoint respondent No. 4 as Executive, Development and respondent No. 3 not having deposited the amounts of two FDRs with petitioner-company would not come in the way of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who had purchased the FDRs of petitioner-company after paying Rs. 50,000/- each. Decision in State Bank of India v. Shyama Devi, AIR 1978 SC 1263, relied upon by Shri Mahajan is distinguishable on facts. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by Fora below warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed. –––