NCDRC Dismisses Revision Petition on RD Account Confiscation

July 22, 2024

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench of J. Rajendra (Presiding Member) dismissed a revision petition filed against the postal department pertaining to the confiscation of the Complainant’s recurring deposit account due to allegations of embezzlement. The NCDRC held that such disputes require a detailed examination of evidence and do not fall within the jurisdiction of the consumer fora.

Overview

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. Upon contacting the sub-postmaster for payment, the Complainant’s passbook was retained without receiving any payment. Despite escalating the issue to the senior superintendent, no resolution was provided. Subsequently, the Complainant sought information under the RTI Act, 2005, but received incomplete information. A legal notice was issued, yet neither payment nor a response was received. Consequently, feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Aligarh (“District Commission”).

In their response, the sub-postmaster and the senior superintendent (referred to collectively as the ‘Officials’) acknowledged the existence of the RD accounts and the deposited amounts. They alleged that the Complainant’s father had misappropriated Rs. 5,62,032/-. The Postal Department had conducted an investigation and found him guilty, resulting in an FIR being filed under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC. Due to the embezzlement, the operation of the disputed accounts was suspended under the Public Accountants Default Act, 1850. The suspension was contingent upon the Complainant’s father depositing the embezzled amount.

The District Commission ruled in favor of the Complainant, ordering the Officials to pay the maturity amount within one month, along with 8% interest. Additionally, they were directed to compensate Rs. 3,000/- for mental agony and Rs. 2,000/- for litigation expenses.

Dissatisfied with the District Commission’s decision, the Officials appealed to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh (“State Commission”). The State Commission noted that the operation of the accounts had been suspended under the provisions of the Public Accountants Default Act, 1850. It determined that the matter did not fall within the purview of deficiency in service as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Consequently, the State Commission allowed the appeal of the Officials, overturning the order of the District Commission.

Following the filing of a revision petition before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”) by the Complainant, the NCDRC reviewed the case and made the following observations:

The NCDRC noted that the primary issue under consideration was whether there was a deficiency in service attributable to the Officials. It was acknowledged that the RD account had been confiscated under the Public Accountants Default Act, 1850, following allegations of embezzlement. The central grievance pertained to the non-release of the maturity amount of the RD account subsequent to the acquittal of the Complainant’s father. However, the confiscation was executed based on service terms and directives issued by the Postal Department’s Disciplinary Authority.

Highlighting that such disputes should be addressed through the established protocols of the Postal Department or appropriate legal procedures, the NCDRC underscored the complexity of the case, which involved allegations of embezzlement and the application of service regulations. The matter necessitated a thorough examination of evidence, surpassing the jurisdictional scope of consumer forums.

Consequently, the NCDRC found no legal irregularity or deficiency in the State Commission’s ruling. The revision petition was dismissed, and the Complainant was advised to pursue remedies through the pertinent legal channels.

Posted and reproduced in Public Interest by

Adv. Sulaiman Bhimani Legal Consultant

Expert in RERA & Consumer Matters, Co-operative Scty Matters,

Deem Conveyance, Family Matters, and Property Disputes.

Human and Civil Rights Campaigner

President Citizens Justice Forum https://citizensjusticeforum.in