Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum. 

          Complainants (respondents herein) invested, in all, Rs.29,19,000/- in the Postal Monthly Income Scheme.  The interest payable was 9% under the Scheme at the relevant time.  In all, 23 cheques for Rs.1,30,000/- were deposited in Chinchwad post office from 25.2.2003 to 26.2.2003.  Out of the 23 cheques, 14 cheques were deposited on 25.2.2003 and 9 cheques on 26.2.2003.  Cheques were presented on 1.3.2003 and were encashed on 4.3.2003.  In the meantime, the rate of interest under the postal monthly income scheme was revised and reduced from 9% to 8% per annum.  Complainants, alleging that the petitioner being deficient in service in not presenting the cheques for encashment on the date it was deposited caused financial loss to the respondents, filed complaint before the District Forum.

          District Forum partly allowed the complaint and held that the petitioner was deficient in service and accordingly allowed the complaint of Complainants No.1 to 7 with costs and compensation of Rs.1,000/-.  Complaint of Complainants No.8-14 were dismissed.  District Forum, after tracing the movement of the cheques, for coming to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner in not sending the cheques for collection immediately on deposit of the same, recorded the following finding :

“The Forum after going through the record and after going through the contents of the affidavit and list of document of the opponent and notification and rules produced by the opponent, is of the view that when the date of encashment of the cheque is the date of deposit is the rule of the post office, then the matter is, whether the opponent deposited the cheques in time or not?  Though by way of affidavit the opponent have stated in para no.11 that the cheques presented for opening of MIS account at Chinchwad, East division post office on 25.2.2003 and 26.2.2003 were sent for clearance on the same day, these cheques were cleared on 4.3.2003.  The Forum at the time of argument get it confirmed from both the sides, whether 26.2.2003 onwards there were Government holiday or bank holiday?  The answer was negative.  Under such circumstances, we have verified from the documents produced by the opponents whether the opponents really deposited the cheques on 25.2.2003 and 26.2.2003 or not? And surprisingly we found through the documents produced by the opponent to show cheque details alongwith clearance details etc. which are on page no.9 to 12 of their list which is on Ex-B1, that the opponents deposited 51 cheques including cheques of complainant at Sr.No.1 to 14 vide challan No.25 on 1.3.2003 which were cleared on 4.3.2003.  This vital information which we gathered is from the seal of the Shivajinagar post office i.e. Head Office and which we can clearly read from page no.10 to 12 of the cheque detail and clearance list produced by the opponents.  The Forum therefore is of the view that though the opponents, by way of affidavit stated that they have deposited the cheques on 25.2.2003 and 26.2.2003, the cheque detail list which the opponents themselves have produced is telling different story that the opponents have deposited the cheques on 1.3.2003 only.  The Forum therefore is of the view that though as per Rule no.6(2) of Post Offices (Monthly Income Account) Rules framed under the powers conferred by Section 15 of Government Saving Bank Act, 1873, Chinchwad Post Office, on its own did not reduce the rate of interest arbitrarily and acted as per Gazette of India Notification No.GSR-176(e), New Delhi published on 1.3.2003, the record which the opponent have produced show that the opponents though received the cheques on 25.2.2003 and 26.2.2003, they kept the cheques with them and not deposited on the same day and therefore the complainant suffered loss of interest of 1% on the entire amount on their deposits.  The Forum therefore found there is substance in the contention of the complainant.”

          Being aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, all the 14 complainants filed Appeal before the State Commission.  State Commission upheld the finding of the District Forum that the petitioner was deficient in rendering service to the respondents but granted a consolidated compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainants.

          Finding recorded by the fora below that the petitioner was deficient in rendering service is finding of fact which cannot be interfered with in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction.  Under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the National Commission, in revision, can interfere with the orders only if it appears that the Authority below has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

          We find no error/irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction by the State Commission in its impugned order.  Dismissed.