JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) Aggrieved by the order dated 24.11.2006 passed by the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow
(for short the ‘State Commission’) in Appeal No. A/2964/SC/2006, A/2965/SC/2006 and A/2966/SC/2006, the original complainants in the complaints before the District Forum have filed these petitions purportedly under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘the Act’). The appeals before the State Commission were filed by the Union of India and functionaries of the Postal Department -4- against the common order dated 22.9.2006 passed by the District Consumer Protection Forum (First), Agra in complaint case Nos. 620 of 2003, 621 of 2003 and 622 of 2003. By the said order, the said District Forum had allowed the complaints filed by the complainants (petitioners herein) and directed the opposite party (Postal Authorities) to pay the deposited amounts along with interest, which was payable on Public Provident Fund Account within 45 days from the date of the order along with interest @ 6% per annum with effect from 01.4.2003, besides awarding a sum of Rs. 2,000/- compensation and Rs. 1,000/- cost in each case. In appeal, the State Commission has reversed the said finding and the order of the District Forum and directed the opposite parties (Union of India and its functionaries) to disburse the deposited amount lying in the account of the petitioners with interest which was payable in the saving bank account. Hence these petitions. 2. We have heard Mr. M.N. Krishnamani, Sr. Advocate learned counsel representing the petitioners in these petitions and Mr. R.V. Sinha, counsel representing the respondents and have considered their submissions. 3. Mr. Kirshnamani would assail the impugned orders passed by the State Commission primarily on the ground that the same are not based on correct and proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the -5- case, the evidence and material produced on record and least it being in consonance with the legal position as settled by this Commission and various Courts. The basis of his submission is that the appeals filed by the respondent-Union of India before the State Commission were finally disposed of on the first ever date of the hearing even when no notice was issued to the petitioners denoting the intention that the matter would be finally heard and disposed of on the said date of hearing. Yet another submission is that the State Commission, while considering the appeals has set aside even the findings of fact reached by the District Forum by quoting the Rule-3 of PPF Scheme, 1968 i.e. going by the abstract legal position emanating from the said scheme without due consideration of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the cases in hand. He submits that the District Forum had taken pains in considering the entire gamut of controversy and based on its correct appreciation of the facts and material produced on record, in particular that there was patent mistake on the part of the respondents at the time of opening of the accounts as the second name which was given as a name of the nominee was incorporated in the name of the account holders and thereafter, the respondent-authorities had throughout been crediting the interest as payable in the respect PPF Accounts and therefor it was too -6- late for the said authorities at the 15th year to tell the complainants that their accounts will earn only saving bank interest. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Sinha submits that the orders rendered by the State Commission are fully justified and are based on correct interpretation of Rule-3 as also in consonance with a recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Sathasivam and A.K. Patnaik, JJ. AIR 2011 Supreme Court 2604. 5. Having considered the respective submissions, we are of the view that the appeals filed before the State Commission have not received the kind of consideration it required and the appeals have been allowed overlooking the factual aspects in these cases. Appeal is continuation of the trial and an Appellate court/Forum/Tribunal is obliged under law to consider all factual and legal pleas raised by the parties and cannot base its decision in appeal only on legal aspect ignoring the factual aspect, which also had great bearing. 6. In our view, the impugned orders passed by the State Commission have resulted into miscarriage of justice as the appeals have not been considered in the manner as it was required. Besides no reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioners herein for making their submissions and the order came to be passed based on the submissions made on behalf of the appellants-Union of India. We -7- therefore, consider it expedient in the interest of justice to remit back the appeals to the board of State Commission for deciding the same afresh in accordance with law taking into account all the pleas put forth by the parties and relevant law on the subject. 7. Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 22.11.2012. 8. In result the Revision Petitions are partly allowed and the appeals are remitted with a direction to the State Commission to decide the appeals as expeditiously as it may be practicable, but not later than six months from the date of the appearance of the parties as the matter has already been unduly delayed before various Forums. | 
