Order Date: 12th July 2024
Order Name: Vineet Kumar Dixit vs Senior Superintendent of Post Offices and Anr.
Case No.: Revision Petition No. 3383 of 2017
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) recently dismissed a revision petition involving the postal department and the confiscation of a recurring deposit (RD) account due to alleged embezzlement. Presiding Member J. Rajendra concluded that such disputes necessitate detailed evidence examination and do not fall under the consumer forum’s jurisdiction.
### Brief Facts:
The complainant had opened two RD accounts for his minor son with India Post. One account matured in November 2008, but when he approached the sub-postmaster for payment, his passbook was retained, and no payment was made. Despite reaching out to senior postal officials and seeking information under the RTI Act, 2005, the complainant received no satisfactory response. Consequently, he filed a consumer complaint with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Aligarh.
The postal department officials admitted the existence of the RD accounts and the deposited amounts. However, they argued that the complainant’s father had embezzled Rs. 5,62,032, leading to an FIR under various sections of the IPC. The disputed accounts were stayed under the Public Accountants Default Act, 1850, pending the repayment of the embezzled amount by the complainant’s father.
The District Commission ruled in favor of the complainant, ordering the officials to pay the maturity amount with 8% interest, along with compensation for mental agony and litigation expenses.
### Appeal and Revision:
Dissatisfied with the District Commission’s decision, the officials appealed to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Uttar Pradesh. The State Commission found that the stay on the accounts under the Public Accountants Default Act constituted no deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and thus overturned the District Commission’s order.
The complainant then filed a revision petition with the NCDRC.
### NCDRC Observations:
The NCDRC examined whether there was a deficiency in service by the postal officials. It was undisputed that the RD account had been confiscated due to embezzlement under the Public Accounts Default Act. The non-release of the maturity amount even after the complainant’s father’s acquittal was central to the issue. However, this confiscation was based on service terms and the Postal Department’s disciplinary orders.
The NCDRC concluded that such grievances should be addressed through the postal department’s procedures or an appropriate judicial forum. Given the complexity of the case, including the embezzlement allegations and service terms, the matter required detailed evidence examination and was outside the consumer forum’s jurisdiction.
Therefore, the NCDRC upheld the State Commission’s order, dismissing the revision petition. The complainant was advised to seek relief through the appropriate legal authority.
### Takeaway:
This judgment underscores that disputes involving detailed evidence examination, especially those related to service terms and embezzlement, may not fall within the consumer forum’s jurisdiction. Consumers facing similar issues should consider approaching the appropriate judicial or departmental forums for resolution.
