AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Binoy Kumar, Presiding Member
These are a batch of three Revision Petitions filed by the Post Office, Raja Park and another three Petitions filed by Smt. Ranjana Bakliwal, who are the Opposite Parties Nos. 1 and 2 respectively in the Complaint filed by the Respondent No. 1 in these six Revision Petitions against the common Order of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, the ‘State Commission’) dated 15.04.2009, wherein the Appeals filed by the Petitioners were dismissed and the Orders of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur City (II) (in short, the ‘District Forum’) was confirmed. The District Commission had allowed the Complaints by directing payment of Rs. 3 lakh each in three Complaints jointly or individually by the Post Office and the agent / Opposite Party No. 2, holding deficiency of service on the part of both the Opposite Parties.
Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner / Post Office, Petitioner / Agent and the Respondent - 1 / Complainants. Though, these are cases of concurrent findings in favour of the Complainants, there is a basic issue of law involved in the matter. This is whether in a matter where facts have been disputed and allegations of forgery made, would such matter be decided by a Consumer Commission or whether it shall be a matter to be decided before a Civil Court, which can take elaborate evidences from the parties concerned. In this matter, the Post Office is disputing firstly the payment of Rs. 3 lakh in each of the three Complaints and secondly, the pass-book that has been produced by the Complainants are allegedly forged though the pass-books contained the figure of Rs. 3 lakh in each of the three complaints. In two of the cases, the ledger account of the Post Office which is on record shows the amount of only Rs. 30,000/- having been deposited and in the third case, the account number mentioned is the same that had been already closed and payment made to the Complainants. So existence of a fresh passbook with same account number again is a matter of dispute and forgery.
In the Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chairman and Managing Director, City Union Bank Ltd. & Anr. Vs. R. Chandramohan, Civil Appeal No. 7289 of 2009, decided on 27.03.2023, it has been held that the Consumer Commission proceedings being summary in nature, the Complaints involving highly disputed questions of facts or cases involving tortious acts or criminality like fraud or cheating, could not be decided by the Forum / Commission under the Act. This judgment was based on the earlier decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ravneet Singh Bagga vs. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, (2000) 1 SCC 66 and Indigo Airlines vs. Kalpana Rani Debbarma, (2020) 9 SCC 424: (2021) 2 SCC (Civ) 647, wherein it has been held that the proceedings before the Commission are essentially summary in nature and the issue which involve disputed factual question, should not be adjudicated by the Commission.
In view of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court cited above, it is my considered opinion that the Revision Petitions filed by the Post Office are partly allowed by setting aside the Orders of the State Commission and the District Forum. Consequently, the Revision Petitions filed by Ranjana Bakliwal stand dismissed.
In the interest of justice, in two of the Revision Petitions, wherein the Post Office admitted that Rs. 30,000/- has been deposited by the Complainants and such amount has been retained by it, which is clearly deficiency of service, the same shall be paid to the concerned Complainants alongwith interest as per rules alongwith additional interest of 6% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till realisation within a period of six weeks of this Order, failing which, the rate of interest shall stand enhanced to 9% per annum for the same period. Further, the Complainants / Respondent No. 1 are at liberty to pursue their Complaints before the appropriate Court of law while condoning the time spent in the matter pending before the various Consumer Commissions.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.