The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for parties to show sufficient cause for condonation of delay, especially in cases involving consumer disputes.

JUDGMENT/ORDER :

Rekha Gupta, Presiding Member

1. The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 27.07.2012 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Mumbai ('the State Commission') in First Appeal no. 196 of 2012.

2. The facts of the case as per the petitioner/complainant are that the petitioner had opened a recurring deposit with the respondent no.3/ OP no. 3 post office on 24.01.2005 and was to pay Rs.5000/- per month. He alleged that he had deposited Rs.5000/- per month regularly in the post office till the end of 10.12.2009 through respondent no. 4/ OP no. 4, who was the agent of Mahila Pradhan Shetriya Bhachat Yojana. Entries were made by the agent along with the signature of respondent no. 4 in the card no. IEF 0082257. On maturity the petitioner demanded the amount of the said deposited amount, however, the same was not paid to him. He then filed a complaint with the following prayer:

Complainant's complaint may be kindly be allowed;

The opponent nos.1 to 4 be ordered that the complainant had opened a recurring deposit account vide no. 2618583 with amount of Rs.5,000/- per month accordingly the total amount comes to Rs.3,00,000/- along with interest after maturity, to be paid to the complainant;

The compensation be awarded to the complainant to pay a sum of rupees mentioned above with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of application till the date of actual realisation of due amount;

The cost of the present complaint may awarded from opponent's;

The opponent's give deficiency in service that after maturity period of recurring deposit amount, opponent's not paid any maturity amount along with interest to the complainant. For this complainant construed to file the present complaint, for that the complainant kindly be awarded by compensation of Rs.15,000/- for the physical and mental harassment for the same; and

Any other just equitable order be passed in the interest of justice.

3. The respondent nos. 1 to 3/ OP nos. 1 to 3 in their reply have stated that the petitioner had paid the amount of recurring deposit to the agent, i.e., respondent no. 4 who had misappropriated the said amount. The agency of the agent was terminated by the Collector, Solapur. It was further mentioned that for the period of 19 months the amount of Rs. 95,000/- was not deposited in the petitioner's account. In fact during the period 2004 to 2009 the agent did not deposit the amount collected from the investors. The agent however made entries in the pass book and put the postal stamp in the pass book to show that the amount had been deposited with the post office. The said agent misappropriated an amount of Rs.19,67,790/- from 472 investors. A complaint had been registered with Sadar Bazar Police Station, Solapur vide CR No. 352 of 2010 and investigation was in progress. It was further averred that the post office cannot be held responsible for the act of the agent. The respondent no. 4 was not an agent or representative of the post office. The petitioner had not deposited 19 instalments due to which the maturity amount could not be paid to the petitioner, hence, prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

4. Respondent no. 4 in her reply had resisted the complaint. According to her, the recurring deposit account was opened in the post office and after depositing the amount, the post office used to put the stamp on the card. In fact the procedure for recurring deposit account had not been followed by the officers of the post office. A false report had been lodged against the agent. She also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solapur ("the District Forum') vide its order dated 28.06.2011 while allowing the complaint gave the following order:

"The opponent nos. 1 to 3 are individually and jointly directed to pay amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the date 01.01.2010 with interest @ 9% per annum, within 30 days from the date of this order and opponent nos.1 to 3