The Consumer Commission's jurisdiction is limited and matters involving substantial evidence require full trials in civil courts.

1. This appeal is taken up for hearing out of turn because the respondents prayed for early hearing claiming senior citizenship and critical condition of person.

2. Give your decisions, never your reasons; your decisions may be right, reasons are sure to be wrong This saying most probably applies to this case.

3. Being aggrieved by the decision dated 9.6.2021 District Commission Godhra in Complaint No.81 of 2019, the appellants have preferred this appeal.

4. The District Commission ordered to pay to the complainant Rs. 9,80,700 together with interest at the rate of 6% from 22.9.2016. Rs. 1,47,500 together with interest at the rate of 6% from 6.12.2011. Rs. 1,47,000 and Rs. 36,310 together with the interest at the rate of 6% from the date of withdrawal of the said amount from complainants account and Rs. 14,000 by way of compensation and cost.

5. For the convenience, the parties are addressed to its original nomenclature.

6. It was the case of the complainants before the District Commission that they had three different MIS accounts with the opponents for the amount of Rs. 3,00,000 and 1,99,500 and Rs. 2,01,000 respectively. These accounts were opened in September 2010 and were to mature in September 2016. The maturity amount were Rs. 4,20,000 and Rs. 2,79,300 and 2,81,400 respectively.

7. It was also further case of the complainants that the complainant No. 1 also had Postal Life Insurance since 2004 and was to be matured in December 2011. The maturity amount was Rs. 1,47,500. Long back the complainant had opened one savings bank account with the opponents which was numbered as 27374.

8. It was further case of the complainant that one Mr. R.C. Trivedi (stated to have been agent of the opponents), had pre - maturely closed the accounts of the complainants and transferred maturity proceeds to SB account referred above, and also transferred postal life insurance amount to SB account and then withdrawn all these amounts without their knowledge and information. Over and above this, the said Mr. Trivedi also had withdrawn amount lying in credit in savings bank account and for the recovery of the same the complainants have filed the complaint before District Commission.

9. When the notice was issued to the postal authorities, the postal authorities have filed detail reply and also produced on record documents in support of their version to establish that the withdrawals of the amount from the account of the complainants were permitted by the complainant themselves and Mr. R. C. Trivedi had withdrawn all these amounts on the date of amount credited in the complainant's savings bank account.

10. It was also further case on the part of department that the said Mr. R.C. Trivedi had presented different accounts closing applications with the signature of the complainants and there were mandates that the closing proceeds to be deposited to savings bank account. The postal authority, therefore, calculated the premature closure amounts and credited the said amount to the complainant's savings bank account with the postal department.

11. Now for the withdrawal from the savings bank account also Mr. R.C.Trivedi has presented different payment vouchers and all these vouchers were signed by the complainants. Under such circumstances, there was nothing to be done by the postal authority but to make the payment as requested for.

12. It is submitted that, the District Commission merely on the basis of some previous precedents decided by National Commission as well as the Supreme Court, came to conclusion that postal authorities might have co