Mr. Justice M.S. Parikh, President—All these appeals arise from the claims preferred by respective consumer against the Postal Department before the learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Rural), Ahmedabad District in respective complaints. Particulars of appeal number, relative complaint number, name of the complainant/s and the amount awarded by the learned Forum are set out in the following table:

Sr. No.

Appeal No.

Comp. No.

Name/s of Complainant/s

Amt. Awarde Rs.

01

98/04

127/03

Rameshbhai Patel

and Lalitaben A. Patel

48,000

02

122/04

119/03

Ramanbhai Patel

and Lalitaben A. Patel

1,50,000

03

123/04

120/03

Ramanbhai B. Patel

96,000

04

124/04

121/03

Karunaben V. Patel

36,000

05

125/04

122/03

Jayantibhai Ambalal Patel

62,000

Reenaben J. Patel

in all

06

126/04

123/03

Jayantibhai Ambalal Patel and

1,34,000

Ushaben J. Patel

in all

07

127/04

124/03

Ushaben J. Patel and Hiral J. Patel

66,000

08

128/04

125/03

Piyush Ramanlal Patel

60,000

09

129/04

126/03

Shantilal Patel

96,000

10

130/04

118/03

R.B. Patel and Lalitaben A. Patel

60,000

2. Out of the aforesaid appeals and complaints, Appeal No. 130 of 2004 relating to Complaint No. 118 of 2003, Appeal No. 122 of 2004 relating to Complaint No. 119 of 2003, Appeal No. 123 of 2004 relating Complaint No. 120 of 2003, Appeal No. 124 of 2004 relating to Complaint No. 121 of 2003, Appeal No. 128 of 2004 relating to Complaint No. 125 of 2003, Appeal No. 129 of 2004 relating to Complaint No. 126 of 2003 and Appeal No. 98 of 2004 relating to Complaint No. 127 of 2003 are in respect of claim under the head Monthly Income Scheme of the opponent Postal Department. Appeal No. 125 of 2004 relating to Complaint No. 122 of 2003, Appeal No. 127 of 2004 relating to Complaint No. 124 of 2003, Appeal No. 126 of 2004 relating to Complaint No. 123 of 2003 are in respect of Time Deposit Account with the opponent Postal Department. The complainants are inhabitants of village Vahelal, Tal. Dascroi, District Ahmedabad. Respective complainants had an occasion to invest their monies with the opponent Postal Department as per the particulars set out in the respective complaints. They received the passbooks with entries showing their investment. It was also their case that the opponent Postal Department went on paying monthly interest right from January 1999 in one case, December ,1999 in another case, May 1998 in third case, February, 2000 in fourth case, May, 2000 in fifth case, August, 96 in sixth case and February, 1998 in seventh case. Out of the said accounts, interest was remitted in the recuirring account of the complainants of Complaint No. 120 of 2003 and Complaint No. 127 of 2003. Relevant particulars of payments of interest made by the opponent Postal Department to the relevant complainants are set out in the impugned order. The complainants made grievance with regard to non-receipt of interest from September, 2000 and also complained about the same before the concerned officer of the opponent Postal Department. In the meantime, they came to know that the Sub-Post Master of Village Vahelal Shri Arvind A. Patel had misappropriated the cash around Rs. 60 lakhs from the accounts of the investors during the period 29.6.1989 and 21.8.2000. The complainants were informed about the fact that the said Sub-Post Master misappropriated their money and their interest amount was not being paid to them. Criminal complaint has also been filed against the said Post Master. As, in spite of their repeated requests, the opponent Post Department did not pay their invested money in the Monthly Income Scheme accounts, they were required to approach the learned Forum by way of respective complaints.

3. The opponent Postal Department contended before the learned Forum that highly disputed and complicated questions of facts and law were involved in the matter and, therefore, elaborate evidence was required to be adduced in each of the complaints. Accordingly, the complainants should be relegated to their remedy before the Civil Court. Be