National Commission Cannot Interfere With Concurrent Factual Findings Made By Lower Fora: NCDRC

Brief Facts of the Case

The complainant alleged that the Union of India/post office and its authorized agent mishandled and misappropriated funds meant for a PPF account and Kisan Vikas Patra. Furthermore, the agent reportedly failed to deposit Rs. 7,98,000 into the PPF account despite receiving it over several transactions from 1993 to 2010. The post office revealed that only Rs. 3,62,000 was deposited, while the complainant had deposited Rs. 11,60,000 according to receipts and passbook entries. The complainant claimed a loss of Rs. 7,98,000 due to these fraudulent actions and filed a consumer complaint seeking recovery of the misappropriated funds, Rs. 1,00,000 in compensation, and Rs. 14,000 for litigation expenses before the District Commission. The district commission allowed the complaint and directed the post office and the agent to pay Rs.6,68,000 with 6% simple interest per annum. Aggrieved by the District Commission's order the complainant and the post office appealed before the State Commission of Uttar Pradesh which dismissed both the appeals. Consequently, the complainant filed a revision petition before the National Commission.

Contentions of the Opposite Party

The Post Office acknowledged opening a PPF account with an initial deposit of Rs. 60,000 but contested the complainant's sole reliance on the agent, an employee of the Post Office, without verifying the ledger over a 19-year period. They argued that the complainant's failure to monitor her account and reclaim the passbook indicated negligence on her part. The Post Office invoked procedural guidelines for dealing with fraud committed by national saving agents, stating that any fraud by an agent would be investigated by the appointing authority, such as the District Magistrate, and that the Post Office itself was not legally liable for actions committed by its agents. They claimed that issues involving agents appointed by government authorities fell under administrative and criminal law, not consumer disputes, and that the consumer court lacked jurisdiction.

Observations by the National Commission

The National Commission observed that it's revisional authority under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (equivalent to Section 21(b) of the 1986 Act), is very limited. In this case, the concurrent factual findings of the lower forums did not reveal any illegality, material irregularity, or jurisdictional error warranting interference. The Supreme Court in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 11 SCC 269 and Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India (Civil Appeal No. 432 of 2022) emphasized that the revisional jurisdiction should be exercised only when the State Commission acted beyond its jurisdiction, failed to exercise it, or acted illegally or with material irregularity. Similarly, in Rajiv Shukla vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. (2022) 9 SCC 31, it was reiterated that the National Commission's powers are restricted to cases where the State Commission acted outside its jurisdiction or with significant legal error.

The National Commission found no merit in the present revision petitions and upheld the State Commission's order while dismissing the revision petition.

Case Title: Shashikala Baranwal Vs. Union Of India & Anr.

Case Number: R.P. No. 783/2023