Consumer Forums Cannot Adjudicate Embezzlement Allegations: NCDRC
Consumer Forums Cannot Adjudicate Embezzlement Allegations: NCDRC
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a revision petition filed against the postal department concerning the confiscation of the complainant's recurring deposit (RD) account due to allegations of embezzlement. The NCDRC determined that such disputes require a detailed examination of evidence and are beyond the jurisdiction of the consumer forum.
The complainant had opened two RD accounts for his minor son with India Post (Post Office). One of these accounts matured in November 2008. Upon seeking payment, the sub-postmaster retained the complainant's passbook and withheld payment. Despite contacting the senior superintendent, the complainant received no payment. He then sought information under the RTI Act, 2005, but received incomplete information. A legal notice was served, yet no payment or reply was forthcoming. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Aligarh (District Commission).
The sub-postmaster and the senior superintendent (collectively referred to as officials) acknowledged the existence of the RD accounts and the deposited amounts. They contended that the complainant's father had embezzled Rs. 5,62,032, and the postal department found him guilty. An FIR was registered under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC against him. The disputed accounts were stayed under the Public Accountants Default Act, 1850, with the stay to be released once the embezzled amount was repaid by the complainant's father.
The District Commission ruled in favor of the complainant, directing the officials to pay the maturity amount within one month with 8% interest, along with Rs. 3,000 for mental agony and Rs. 2,000 for litigation expenses.
The officials, aggrieved by the District Commission's order, filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh (State Commission). The State Commission held that the accounts were stayed under the Public Accountants Default Act, 1850, and the issue did not constitute a deficiency in service as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Consequently, the appeal of the officials was allowed, and the District Commission's order was set aside.
The complainant then filed a revision petition before the NCDRC. The NCDRC examined 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, 1850. The main grievance was the non-release of the maturity amount even after the complainant's father's acquittal. However, the confiscation was based on the service terms and the Postal Department's Disciplinary Authority's orders.
The NCDRC concluded that such grievances should be addressed through the Postal Department's procedures or an appropriate judicial forum. Given the nature of the case, including embezzlement allegations and service term applicability, a detailed examination of the evidence was necessary, which is beyond the consumer's jurisdiction.
Therefore, the NCDRC upheld the State Commission's order and dismissed the revision petition. The complainant was advised to seek relief through the appropriate legal authority.
