Order Name: Post Office Vs. Ramesh Chand Bhatia
Case No.: R.P. No. 1608/2019
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), under the leadership of Mr. Binoy Kumar, recently made a significant ruling. The Commission reiterated that its proceedings, due to their summary nature, are not suited for cases involving highly disputed facts or allegations of criminal acts such as fraud or cheating.
Case Background
The main legal question was whether a Consumer Commission has the authority to decide on matters involving disputed facts and allegations of forgery, or if such matters should be handled by a Civil Court, which can examine extensive evidence. In this case, the Post Office disputed the payment of Rs. 3 lakh in each complaint, claiming that the pass-books provided by the complainants were forged. The Post Office challenged an order from the State Commission of Rajasthan, which had supported the District Forum’s decision. The District Forum had directed the payment of Rs. 3 lakh each in three complaints, holding the Post Office responsible for a deficiency in service.
National Commission’s Observations
The National Commission referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Chairman and Managing Director, City Union Bank Ltd. & Anr. vs. R. Chandramohan. It was stated that Consumer Commission proceedings, due to their summary nature, cannot resolve complaints that involve highly disputed facts or cases of tortious acts or criminal behavior like fraud or cheating. This judgment was consistent with earlier Supreme Court decisions in Ravneet Singh Bagga vs. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines and Indigo Airlines vs. Kalpana Rani Debbarma, which declared that issues involving disputed factual questions should not be adjudicated by the Commission.
Based on these precedents, the NCDRC decided that the revision petitions filed by the Post Office should be partly allowed, overturning the orders of the State Commission and the District Forum. However, the Commission also noted that the Post Office admitted that Rs. 30,000 had been deposited by the complainants and retained by it, which amounted to a clear deficiency in service. Therefore, the Commission directed the Post Office to pay the amount to the complainants along with interest as per rules, and additional interest of 6% per annum. The Commission also ruled that the complainants are free to pursue their complaints in the appropriate court of law.
Takeaway
This ruling underscores the limitation of Consumer Commissions in dealing with cases involving complex and disputed facts or allegations of criminal acts. Such matters are better suited for Civil Courts, which can conduct a thorough examination of evidence. Consumers should be aware of these limitations when deciding where to file their complaints.
