Per Shri S.R.Khanzode, Hon'ble Presiding Judicial Member: We heard both the parties finally at the stage of admission itself. This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 30/01/2010 passed in consumer complaint no.1336/2008, Shri Ashok Rajaram Shah V/s ICICI Bank & Ors., by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangli (Forum below in short). Consumer complaint is filed on the allegation that complainant was working with Sangli Bank which is merged with opp.party/ICICI bank. Thereafter, services of the complainant came to an end on 31/03/2007 and he received terminal benefit including gratuity. It is further alleged that there was delay of 58 days on the part of Bank in paying the gratuity and provident fund amount and therefore, alleging deficiency in service on the part of appellant bank, the consumer complaint was filed. Forum below held that there is delay in paying the gratuity amount and awarded compensation by way of interest @ 5% for 24 days and @15% p.a. for 15 days. In addition to it Rs.3,000/-were awarded as cost and Rs.15,000/- towards mental torture. Feeling aggrieved thereby, opp.parties preferred this appeal. We heard Adv.Mr.V.Mannadiar for the appellant and Adv. Mr. S.K.Kelkar for respondent. Perused the record. Admittedly there is delay in making payment and, therefore over the gratuity amount which is subject matter of this consumer dispute and appeal, the bank has paid interest @10% p.a. for the delay. It is tried to be submitted by the respondent/org.complainant that this interest was paid after consumer complaint was filed. The fact remained is that for the delay, interest @ 10% p.a. s was paid and received by the complainant. Referring to the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, particularly, provisions of Section 7 (3)(A) and provision of Section 17 and 18 of the said Act (Section 18 provides for appeal), we find for the delay in paying the amount for gratuity, statutory interest @ 10% p.a. is payable. Quantum of gratuity is not in dispute. Dispute is only in respect of compensation payable for the delay in making the payment. Since the interest @10% p.a. is to be paid as per provisions of the statute and the same is being paid, it cannot be no more held that there is deficiency in service on part of the bank on this count. This Commission has already taken a view and expressed opinion in the matter of Mohamad Ibrahim Shekh Muneer V/s. Pulgaon Cotton Mills Ltd.II (2006) CPJ 391 that dispute over the payment of gratuity vis-à-vis payment of interest over delayed payment could not be a consumer dispute. We do want to take a different view since present case is also covered by the said judgment. For the reasons stated above, Forum below committed an error in passing the impugned order. It cannot be supported with. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:- :-ORDER-: 1. Appeal is allowed. 2. Impugned order dated 30/01/2008 passed by District Consumer Redressal Forum, Sangli is hereby set aside. 3. In the result consumer complaint stands dismissed. 4. In the given circumstances, parties are left to bear their own costs. 5. Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties. | 
