NEW DELHI: The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held the Post Office responsible for Rs 6 lakh deposited by two complainants through cheques, rejecting its argument that it could not be held liable for transactions linked to a fraudulent agent. The commission upheld the lower consumer commission’s orders directing the Post Office to pay the amount with interest and dismissed its revision petition. The order was passed on August 27, 2026.
Why did the depositors approach the commission? According to the commission order, the complainants had given a cheque of Rs 3 lakh to the Post Master on December 17, 2008, for opening a Monthly Income Scheme account. They later gave another cheque of Rs 3 lakh on December 4, 2009, for opening a similar account. They also claimed to have made cash investments totalling Rs 10.50 lakh through a Post Office agent. However, these amounts were neither entered in their passbooks nor returned, despite the agent having given written acknowledgments for receiving the money. The complainants claimed that they had deposited a total of Rs 16.50 lakh and sought a refund along with interest, compensation and litigation costs.
The Post Office denied liability and said one of its agents, R.C. Trivedi, had committed fraud in several transactions. It argued that the agent had been appointed by the Collector, Panchmahal, and that the department could not be held responsible for his fraudulent transactions. The district commission found that the two cheque payments of Rs 3 lakh each had been established, but rejected the claim relating to the Rs 10.50 lakh cash transactions for want of proof of negligence or deficiency by the Post Office. It therefore directed payment of Rs 6 lakh with interest.
The complainants and the Post Office both challenged the district commission's order before the Gujarat state consumer commission. The state commission dismissed both appeals and upheld the finding that the Post Office was liable for the Rs 6 lakh received through cheques. The Post Office then approached the NCDRC, arguing that no vicarious liability could be imposed on it. It also relied on postal rules and said there were no account-opening forms or departmental records supporting the complainants' claim.
Why did the NCDRC reject the Post Office’s plea? The bench of President Justice A P Sahi, and member Bharatkumar Pandya noted that the lower commissions had already separated the cash transactions from the cheque payments and had rejected the claim for the cash amount. “We have considered the submissions raised and we find that the district commission has categorically segregated the allegation of cash transactions and has disbelieved the same. It is only the tendering of the cheques in the name of the Post Master that have been taken into consideration and a finding of fact has been arrived at by the State Commission holding that Rs 6,00,000/- had been received and deposited through cheques,” the commission held.
The NCDRC said the state commission had recorded a finding of fact that the Post Office had received the two cheques totalling Rs 6 lakh. It found no material error in that finding that would justify interference in revision. “We do not find any error, much less a material irregularity or illegality, so as to warrant exercise of revisional jurisdiction conferred on this commission,” the bench noted.
It also pointed out that the scope of its revisional jurisdiction was narrow and that the lower consumer fora had recorded concurrent findings of fact after examining the issues, including the appointment of the Post Office agent and the department’s liability. “Accordingly, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned orders and the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Fora below. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed,” the bench concluded. The commission therefore upheld the orders of the consumer fora below, leaving the direction to pay Rs 6 lakh to the complainants undisturbed.
