IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Internal procedure enquiry - the depositors cannot be made to continue to suffer for the sake of an internal procedural enquiry of the petitioner.
(2) Non-suited - The respondent cannot be non-suited for the reason that the enquiry is underway or that the matter is sub-judice.
(3) Monthly income Scheme - Depositors in a monthly income scheme instituted by the government are small investors who cannot be expected to wait indefinitely for their money to be refunded especially when the petitioner has kept the matter undecided for nearly 9 years which is an inordinately long period of time.

ORDER

Subhash Chandra, Member—This revision petition is filed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) assails the order of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Kolkata, West Bengal (in short, ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No. A/1389/2014 dated 06.12.2016 arising out of order dated 17.09.2014 in complaint no. 67/2013 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Burdwan (in short, ‘District Forum’). This order disposes off revision petitions in RP Nos.09, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of 2018 which arise from a similar grievance and the same order of the State Commission.

2. Respondents are holders of Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) accounts promoted by the Post Office in the Burnpur Market Sub Post Office, District Burdwan, West Bengal and had approached the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the ground that interest was not being remitted to their accounts. The petitioner herein had contested the complaint on the ground that the accounts had been opened by the complainants through the agency of someone who was not an authorised agent of the Post Office and that the MIS accounts were therefore fake placing no liability on the Post Office. The complaints were dismissed by the District Forum; however, the State Commission allowed the appeals and directed that the sum deposited in the MIS accounts be refunded with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of the complaint before the District Forum till the date of final payment along with litigation costs. The petitioner has impugned the order of the State Commission allowing the appeal of the respondents. For the sake of convenience, facts of the case are taken from the petition filed against Shib Shankar Bhattacharya in RP 2356 of 2017, in whose case Rs.1,00,500/- was directed to be refunded with 9% interest from 26.03.2013, the date of filing the complaint before the District Forum with Rs.4000/- as cost.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records carefully.

4. The petitioner has contended no MIS account was ever opened by the respondent with it. The account claimed to have been opened by way of deposit through an agent of the Post Office is alleged to be a fake account as Soumen Routh, the savings agent who allegedly opened the account was facing a criminal case for cheating. According to the petitioner, account no. 13996 was opened on 01.06.2010 in the name of one Sambhu Acharyya with a deposit of Rs.60,000/-. No amount of Rs 1,00,500/- was deposited with the Post Office. The petitioner was therefore not an account holder of the MIS scheme and the entries in his passbook were fictitious and false. It was submitted that the Post Office had taken cognisance of the fraud committed and ordered an internal enquiry in the matter. The order of the District Forum dismissing the complaint is therefore correct according to the petitioner. The petitioner has also relied upon the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State Bank of India Vs. Smt Shyama Devi (1978) 3 SCC 399 which held that a fake entry in a customer’s passbook made by an employee of a bank without proof of deposit by customer is no proof of deposit of money by the customer and the bank is not liable if an entry in passbook by an employee is proved to be false.

5. The respondent has contended that an MIS account (No. 13996) was opened by him on 28.05.2010 in the Post Office by one Soumen Routh, an agent for the MIS scheme. A passbook was issued containing the seal, stamp and signature of the petitioner viz. Post Master, Sub Post Office, Burnpur Market, Burdwan acknowledging receipt of Rs.1,00,500/- on that date. The respondent contends that he regularly drew monthly interest of Rs.670/- from this account from the Post Office. Interest was drawn between 08.07.2010 to 08.06.2012. Thereafter, payment of interest was refused on the ground that the passbook was fake and entries therein were false. It is averred that the original pass