ORDER

This common Order resolves eight Revision Petitions, No. RP No. 783-786 of 2023 and RP No. 2497-2500 of 2023, filed under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. These petitions challenge the orders dated 28.12.2022 by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh (‘State Commission’) related to Appeal Nos. 395/2022, 414/2022, 398/ 2022, 415/2022, 396/2022, 412/2022, 397/2022 and 413/2022. The State Commission upheld the orders of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (‘District Commission’) concerning four Consumer Complaints filed by the Complainant.

2. There was 175 days delay in filing four Revision Petitions No. 2497-2500 of 2023. Considering issues brought out in the Applications seeking condonation of delay, the delay is condoned.

3. Since the facts and questions of law involved in all the 08 Revision Petitions are substantially similar, except for variations in Dates, events, account number and amounts etc., these 08 Revision Petitions are being disposed of by this common Order. To facilitate clarity and convenience, FA No. 395/2022 & 414/2022 shall be considered as the primary / lead case, with the facts outlined below being extracted from Consumer Complaint No. 08/2011.

4. For convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint before the District Forum & State Commission.

5. Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that OP-1 and 2 mishandled and misappropriated the funds meant for deposit into a PPF Account and purchase of Kisan Vikas Patra. She contended that OP-2, an authorized agent of OP-1, failed to deposit a total of Rs.7,98,000/- into the PPF account despite receiving the funds from her over several transactions between 1993 and 2010. Upon inquiry through the Right to Information Act, OP-1 disclosed that only Rs.3,62,000/- was deposited, whereas she deposited Rs.11,60,000/- based on receipts and passbook entries provided. Further, OP-2 allegedly introduced another person, Brijesh Kumar Agarwal, under the pretext of being an agent, complicating the transaction process. The Complainant contends that due to the fraudulent actions of OP-2 and the collusion with OP-1’s employees, she suffered a loss of Rs.7,98,000/-. The Complainant filed Consumer Complaint No. 08 of 2011 before learned District Forum, seeking recovery of the misappropriated amount, compensation amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- for the losses incurred, and Rs.14,000/- for litigation expenses.

6. In reply before the District Forum, OP-1 acknowledged the opening of PPF account with an initial deposit of Rs.60,000/-. OP-1, however, contested that the Complainant’s reliance solely on OP-2, an employee of OP-1, without verifying the ledger for 19 years (1992 to 2010), and not reclaiming the passbook from the agent is negligence on her part. Her failure to monitor her account and verify deposits over such long period indicate her own carelessness. OP-1 invoked Para 10 of the directory, outlining the procedures for dealing with fraud committed by national saving agents. Any fraud by an agent is investigated by the appointing authority, typically the District Magistrate or Officer, responsible for appointing and overseeing agents on behalf of the State Govt. OP-1 asserted that the Post Office (OP-1) itself is not legally liable for actions committed by its agents, as they are appointed and regulated by govt authorities. The consumer court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the complaint because, issues involving agents appointed by District Magistrates fall under administrative and criminal law, not consumer disputes. The allegations of fraud and forgery require a detailed investigation, which exceeded summary powers of the Consumer Commission. OP-1 contended that the Complainant’s negligence in monitoring her account, the regulatory oversight and investigatory responsibilities of govt authorities, absolved OP-1 of legal responsibility in the matter.

7. In its reply,