1. 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, OP-2 stated that he diligently deposited all the amounts entrusted to him by the Complainant and categorically denied any fraudulent behaviour. OP-2 asserted that the allegations made by the Complainant were false, fabricated and motivated by a desire to extort money from the post office. OP-2 highlighted the Complainant's educational background, competence and that she could have independently verified her transactions and checked the ledger at the post office. There were no independent witnesses to substantiate the Complainant's claims, thereby questioning the credibility of her complaint. Further, OP-2 contended the complaint as frivolous and baseless, emphasizing that it should be dismissed outright. OP-2 sought compensation of Rs.10,000/- from the Complainant for the harassment due to false accusations.

8. The learned District Commission in its Order dated 21.04.2022 allowed the complaint in part with the following order:-

            The Opposite Parties are jointly and separately ordered that they pay Rs.6,68,000/- with 6% simple interest per annum to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of this order. Pay simple interest at the annual rate from the date of presentation of the complaint till the final payment is made.

            Payment of undisputed amount of Rs.30,00,523/- through cheque dated 29.07.2021 has been made by this District Consumer Commission to the Complainant.

The parties will bear their own litigation expenses.

9. Being aggrieved by the Order of the District Commission, both OP-1 i.e. UOI, through Senior Post Master and Complainant-Smt. Shashi Kala Baranwal have filed Appeals Nos. 395/2022 & 414/2022 and the learned State Commission vide Order dated 28.12.2022, dismissed both appeals, thereby affirming the order passed by the Ld. District Commission with following order:-

  The Appeal No. 395/2022 filed by the Union of India is dismissed.

  The Appeal No 414/2022 filed by the complainant is dismissed.

  The judgment and the order of the learned District Consumer Commission, Varanasi is confirmed. Both parties shall bear their own cost.

10. Being dissatisfied with the impugned dated 28.12.2022, again both the parties OP-1 as well as Complainant have filed the present Revision Petition bearing Nos. 783/2023 & 2497/2023.

11. Respondent No. 1/OP-1 appeared and filed its reply along with written arguments. However, it was revealed from the Order of the learned State Commission dated 28.12.2022 that Shri Jagat Narayan Mishra, Respondent No. 2/OP-2, died on 18.09.2021. The learned Counsel representing the Complainant/Petitioner stated that they do not hold any specific claims against OP-2, and therefore, pursuing any legal representatives of Shri Jagat Narayan Mishra would be inconsequential. As a result, no further notice was issued to Respondent No. 2/OP-2.
12. In RP No. 783/2023 filed by the Complainant/Petitioner, the learned Counsel argued that Rohit Barnawal, a Complainant's family member had filed similar case before the District Commission under CC No. 243/2012. This case was decided in favor of Rohit Barnawal by the District Commission on 26.07.2018. Subsequently, the Union of India filed an Appeal and the State Commission, Lucknow in its judgment dated 16.09.2021, partly allowed the appeal by reducing the rate of interest and adjusting the compensation but upheld the overall awarded amount. However, in the Revision Petition, it was argued by the learned Counsel that the State Commission, without considering the judgment dated 16.09.2021, incorrectly concluded that Brijesh Agarwal was not an agent of OP-1, and therefore, the amounts deposited by him could not be decreed. To bolster this argument, various judgments were cited. Also, it was asserted that OP-1 bears substantial liability for the actions of its employee/agent, citing relevant legal principles of vicarious liability and prayed for the Revision Petition to be allowed, along with compensation and costs.

13. On the other hand, the learned Counsel representing OP-1, the Post Office, contended that the present case involves allegations of misappropriation, cheating, and fraud. Citing the legal precedent established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The Chairman and Managing Director, City Union Bank Ltd. & Anr. vs. R. Chandramohan (CA No. 7289 of 2009), he argued that proceedings before consumer fora are summary in nature and are not suitable for cases involving highly disputed questions of fact or those entailing tortious acts or criminality such as fraud or cheating. He asserted that the Revision Petition be dismissed solely on this ground. Further, it was emphasized that the Complainant had entrusted substantial sums of money without obtaining prior receipts and had neglected to request a passbook from the agent for an extended period. It was pointed out that the Complainant did not visit the Post Office to verify entries in the passbook for 19 years, except for an initial inquiry after opening the account. In support of the argument, he referenced legal principles governing vicarious liability of an employer for losses caused by the misconduct of an agent or employee, citing the precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India vs. Shyama Dev (1978 AIR 1263, decided on 05.05.1978). Based on these contentions, he urged that the Revision Petition be dismissed as it does not align with the suitable legal framework for adjudication in consumer forums and fails to establish the necessary grounds for vicarious liability as per established legal principles.
14. I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record, including the orders of both the fora and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both the parties.

15. With regard to the RP Nos.783 to 786 of 2023, filed by the Complainants, there is no new ground advanced for enhancement of compensation. Thus, I find no merit in the said Revision Petitions.

16. With regard to the R.P. Nos. 2497 to 2500 of 2023, it is a well settled position in law that revision under section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, (which are pari materia to Section 21(b) the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)  confers very limited jurisdiction on this Commission. In the present case there are concurrent findings of the facts and the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is limited. After due consideration of the facts of the case, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned Order passed by the State Commission warranting our interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. I would like to rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269.
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Sunil Kumar Maity Vs. State Bank of India & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 432 OF 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022, it was held that the revisional Jurisdiction of this Commission is extremely limited by observing as under: -

"9. It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was required. .....”

18.    Similarly, in a recent the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. (2022) 9 SCC 31, it was held that:-

As per Section 21(b) the National Commission shall have jurisdiction to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised its 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. Thus, the powers of the National Commission are very limited. Only in a case where it is found that the State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested illegally or with material irregularity, the National Commission would be justified in exercising the revisional jurisdiction. In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record.

19.        Based on the discussion above, I do not find any merit in the present Revision Petitions No.2497 to 2500 of 2023 and the same are dismissed. Consequently, the impugned Order passed by the State Commission is upheld.

20.        Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present cases, there shall be no order as to costs.

21.        Accordingly, all the eight Revision Petitions RP Nos. 783-786 of 2023 and RP Nos. 2497-2500 of 2023 are dismissed.

22.    All other pending Applications, if any, stand disposed of.