State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Accountant General (A&E;)-Ii vs Shri Padmakar S.Shukla & Ors on 8 May, 2007
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MAHARASHTRA
STATE, MUMBAI
FIRST APPEAL NO. 920 OF 2006 Date of
filing : 11/05 /2006
IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.245 OF 2003
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : JALGAON Date of order :
08/05/2007
The Accountant General (A&E)-II
Maharashtra, Nagpur
..Appellant
(Org. O.P. no.3)
V/s.
1.Shri Padmakar S.Shukla
R/o.Netaji Road, Dharangaon
Tal.Dharangaon, Dist.Jalgaon
2. Director Dadasaheb Choudhari
Vanprashikshak Vidyalaya Pal
Tal.Raver, Dist.Jalgaon
3. Forest Officer
Vanshikshan Vrutt, Maharashtra State
Pune, PMT Building, Pune-42
.. Respondent
(org.complainant)
(Org. Complainant)
..Respondents
(Org.O.P.nos.1&2)
Corum: Shri P.N.Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member
Smt. S.P. Lale, Honble Member
Present: Mr.Vishal Meshram, Advocate for
the Appellant.
Mr.S.G.Sharma, Advocate for
Respondent.
:ORDER:
Per Smt. S.P. Lale, Honble Member
1. This appeal filed by original O.P. in consumer complaint no.245/03 is directed against the order dated 13/4/06 passed by District Consumer Forum, Jalgaon. Forum below directed Accountant General (A & E) Nagpur to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on Rs.2,29,546/- from 1/5/2000 to 30/9/2003 to the complainant. Forum below further directed to pay Rs.2000/- towards compensation for mental agony to the complainant.
2. Original O.P. has taken exception to this award and has filed present appeal. We heard Mr.Vishal Meshram-Advocate for the appellant and Mr.S.G.Sharma-Advocate for the respondent nos.2 & 3. None present for respondent no.1 though duly served.
3. Respondent no.1/org.complainant who worked with respondent no.2 and retired from the Government service on 31/5/99, has raised dispute with regard to delayed payment of Provident fund amount from the O.P. Serious objection is raised on behalf of Accountant General to the maintainability of the complaint. According to the appellant, dispute with regard to delayed payment of Provident fund of the Government employees is kept outside the purview of the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. We find considerable force in the plea raised on behalf of the appellant.
4. Honble National Commission in the matter of Comptroller & Auditor General of India V/s.Shivkant Shankar Naik, Revision petition no.961/97 arising from the order dated 7/2/97 in Appeal no.645/95 of the State Commission of Maharashtra has held that the Accountant General are not rendering any services within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Honble National Commission has made a reference to the Honble Supreme Courts decision in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner V/s.Shiv Kumar Joshi reported in 2000(I) SCC 1998 and observed that case of Mr.Shiv Kumar Joshi is clearly distinguishable as Shri Joshi was not a government employee and therefore it is held that the State Government employees are not governed by the statutory rules applicable to their respective services and for the purpose of raising a service dispute, they are required to go to the State Administrative Tribunals, where ever established or to any other authority except to the Consumer Fora established under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Honble National Commission has clearly stated in the case of Mr.Shivkant Shankar Naik that complainant is not a consumer and the dispute is not a consumer dispute as defined under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
5. Relying on the ratio in the case of Mr.Shivkant Naik laid down by the Honble National Commission, we hold that impugned order under challenge suffers from illegality and is liable to be quashed and set aside. In the result, we pass following order:-
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed.
(ii) Order under challenge is quashed and set aside.
(iii) Complaint is dismissed.
(iv) No order as to costs.
(v) Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties.
(S. P. Lale) (P.N.Kashalkar) Member Presiding Judicial Member Ms.