Consumer Forums Can't Entertain Complaints Involving Allegations Of Embezzlement: NCDRC

Brief Facts:

The Complainant opened two Recurring Deposit (RD) accounts for his minor son with India Post (“Post Office”). One of the accounts matured in November 2008. When the Complainant contacted the sub-postmaster for payment, his passbook was retained, and no payment was made. Despite contacting the senior superintendent, the Complainant did not receive any payments. Therefore, he sought information under the RTI Act, of 2005, but did not receive complete information. A legal notice was served, but neither payment nor a reply was provided. Feeling aggrieved, he filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Aligarh (“District Commission”).

In response, the sub-postmaster and the senior superintendent (collectively referred to as “Officials”) admitted the existence of the RD accounts and the deposited amounts. They contended the Complainant's father had embezzled Rs. 5,62,032/- and the Postal Department found him guilty. An FIR was also registered under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC against him. The operation of the disputed accounts was stayed under the Public Accountants Default Act, of 1850, due to the embezzlement, with the stay to be released once the embezzled amount was deposited by the Complainant's father.

The District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the Officials to pay the Complainant the maturity amount within one month with 8% interest, along with Rs. 3,000/- for mental agony and Rs. 2,000/- for litigation expenses.

Aggrieved by the District Commission's order, the Officials filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh (“State Commission”). The State Commission held that the operation of the accounts was stayed under the Public Accountants Default Act, of 1850, and that the issue did not constitute a deficiency in service as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, of 1986. Therefore, the appeal of the Officials was allowed, and the order of the District Commission was set aside.

Subsequently, the Complainant filed a revision petition before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”).

Observations of the NCDRC:

The NCDRC noted that the main issue was whether there had been a deficiency in service by the Officials. It was undisputed that the RD account had been confiscated due to embezzlement under the Public Accounts Default Act, of 1850. The non-release of the maturity amount of the RD account, even after the acquittal of the Complainant's father, was central to the grievance. However, the confiscation was based on the terms and conditions of service and the orders of the Disciplinary Authority of the Postal Department.

The NCDRC noted that such grievances should be addressed through the Postal Department's procedures or an appropriate judicial forum. Given the nature of the case, including allegations of embezzlement and the applicability of service terms, the matter required a detailed examination of evidence and did not fall within the jurisdiction of the consumer fora.

Therefore, the NCDRC found no illegality or infirmity in the State Commission's order. The revision petition was dismissed. The Complainant was set at liberty to approach the appropriate legal authority for relief.

Case Title: Vineet Kumar Dixit vs Senior Superintendent of Post Offices and Anr.

Case No.: Revision Petition No. 3383 of 2017

Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr M.K. Dua and Ms Kamini Singh

Advocate for the Respondent: Mr Rajinder Nischal

Date of Pronouncement: 12th July 2024