ORDER

1. The present Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) has been filed by Petitioners against the Order dated 11.07.2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 104/2012, whereby the Appeal filed by the Petitioners was dismissed and the Order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as the “District Forum”) was maintained.
2. Brief facts of the case as per the Complaint are that the Respondent No. 1 / Complainant was an employee, as on 01.03.1974, in Rajasthan State Industrial & Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. (RIMDC) and was transferred in January, 1976 to another project. The Contributory Provident Fund was not deducted by the Corporation on the ground that these mines are not included in the schedule under Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952. In an Order of the Government of India, dated 14.01.1977, it was clarified that all mining units fall under the Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952. In 1979, the Complainant was assigned to Rajasthan State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. (RSMDCL). By an Order from the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, dated 31.10.1976, all officers / employees were to be included for Provident Fund deduction w.e.f. 01.04.1971. The Complainant has submitted that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Udaipur had determined his eligibility for Provident Fund Membership w.e.f. 01.11.1974, vide its Order dated 28.05.2003. An amount of Rs. 3,350.50 was paid to the Complainant by RSMDCL on 28.05.2003 by giving the interest on the contribution w.e.f. 01.07.1997, whereas the interest amount should actually be given w.e.f. 1^st November, 1974. The Complainant has demanded that alongwith interest from 01.07.1997 upto July, 2006, an amount of Rs. 40,494.50 towards interest from 01.11.1974 to 30.06.1997 from the Petitioner.
3. Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed Complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum allowed the Complaint against the Opposite Parties Nos. 4 and 5 and directed to pay Rs. 40,494.50 to the Complainant with interest @ 9 % from 01.08.2006 till the date of payment.  
4. The relevant portion of the Order of the District Forum in CC No. 154/2006, dated 16.02.2012 is reproduced herein:

       “22.     Consequently, while deciding the case unanimously, Complaint of the Complainant is        allowed against the Respondents No. 4 and 5 and it is ordered that Respondents No. 4 and 5        are directed to pay the amount of Rs. 40,494.50 (Rupees forty thousand four hundred and        ninety four and fifty paise only) to the Complainant and interest at the rate of 9 percent        thereon from 01.08.2006 till the date of payment within three months. In case payment is not        made within three months, interest @ 18% p.a. shall be payable on the total above amount        and interest on it. Respondents are also directed to pay Rs. 5000/- as cost of proceedings to        the Complainant in three months otherwise interest at the rate of 18 percent on the above        amount shall be payable after it on the above amount.”

5. Aggrieved by the Order of the District Forum, the Opposite Parties Nos. 4 and 5 appealed before the State Commission.
6. The State Commission, vide its Order dated 11.07.2016, dismissed the Appeal and maintained the Order passed by the District Forum.
7. The relevant portion of the Order of the State Commission in First Appeal No. 104/2012, dated 11.07.2016, is reproduced herein:

“12.     Now coming to the main question whether the complainant is entitled to receive any interest from the date the scheme was made applicable to him. This is not in dispute that scheme was made applicable to him from 01.11.1974 and opposite party nos. 4 and 5 have paid to him the contribution of that period but interest on that amount was paid from 01.07.1997, the opposite party has not assigned any valid reason for refusing to pay interest from the date of application of the scheme when the scheme was made applicable by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The complainant is entitled for the benefits from 01.11.1974. I do not find any reason to interfere with order of the ld. DCF. The appeal is dismissed and the judgment of the ld. DCF is maintained.

13.       …xxx….”

8. Against the Order of the State Commission, the Opposite Parties Nos. 4 and 5 filed the present Revision Petition before this Commission with the following prayer:

“a)       to allow the revision petition and set aside the judgment in Appeal No. 104/2012;

b)         to dismiss the complaint filed by the respondent;”

9.  I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through material available on record.
10. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner through video conference argued mainly on two grounds, the first being that when there is a special law governing Provident Fund, the question of the matter being dealt with in a Consumer Commission does not arise. He cited the Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in General Manager, Telecom vs. M. Krishnan & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 7687 of 2004, wherein it was held as under:

“it is well settled that the special law overrides the general law. Hence, in our opinion the High Court was not correct in its approach.

In Chairman, Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation vs. Consumer Protection Council (1995) 2 SCC 479, it was held that the National Commission has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon claims for compensation arising out of motor vehicles accidents. We agree with the view taken in the aforesaid judgment.

In view of the above, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court as well as the order of the District Consumer Forum dated 26.11.2001.

Appeal allowed. No order as to the costs.”

11. The second ground was that the Complaint was filed in the year 2006 and the cause of action was in 2003 and therefore, is barred by limitation.  Further the entire amount due has already been paid along with admissible interest. The Respondent No. 1 / Complainant was given liberty to initiate proceedings before the Competent Officer on full examination under Section 7A of the Employees PF Scheme 1952 by the Regional PF Commissioner in his Order dated 28.05.2003. Without taking recourse under the EPF Scheme, the Respondent No. 1 / Complainant has filed this Consumer Complaint which is not maintainable.  On these grounds, he submitted that the Petition may be allowed and the Complaint be dismissed.
12. The learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 4 (The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jaipur) argued at length and submitted that at the outset, the Employees Provident Fund Organisation is not liable for non-payment as the Petitioner Corporation is under exempted category under Section 17 of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and therefore, any payment to be made has to be done by the Petitioner Organisation. She further submitted that it is a fact that the Petitioner or its predecessor Organisation did not provide its subscription for the period from 01.03.1974 to 31.07.1976 and the amount of Rs. 3,350.50 was paid only on 28.05.2003 on the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner’s Order. The Complainant is seeking the interest w.e.f. 01.11.1974 to 01.07.1997 and which, according to the Complainant comes to Rs. 40,494.50.
13. Both the District Forum and the State Commission have given concurrent finding. The District Forum directed the Petitioners to pay the amount of Rs. 40,494.50 to the Respondent No. 1 / Complainant alongwith interest @ 9% from 01.08.2006. The State Commission had upheld the Order of the District Forum and dismissed the Appeal filed by the Petitioners.
14. The issue before me is whether this Commission should get into deciding the case when there is already a special legislation and the Respondent No. 1 / Complainant being in Government or quasi Government service.
15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ministry of Water Resources & Ors. vs. Shreepat Rao Kamde, Civil Appeal No. 8472 of 2019, decided on 06.11.2019, cited the Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. Jagmittar Sain Bhagat & Ors. vs. Director, Health Services, Haryana & Ors., (2013) 10 SCC 136, which held as under:

“20.     In view of the above, it is evident that by no stretch of imagination can a government servant raise any dispute regarding his service conditions or for payment of gratuity or GPF or any of his retiral benefits before any of the forum under the Act. The government servant does not fall under the definition of a “consumer” as defined under Section 2 (1)(d)(ii) of the Act. Such government servant is entitled to claim his retiral benefits strictly in accordance with his service conditions and regulations or statutory rules framed for that purpose. The appropriate forum, for redressal of any of his grievance, may be the State Administrative Tribunal, if any, or the civil court but certainly not a forum under the Act.

21.       In view of the above, we hold that the government servant cannot approach any of the forum under the Act for any of the retiral benefits.”

16. Further, in the case of Ministry of Water Resources & Ors. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court finally concluded that in keeping with the principles laid down in the case of Dr. Jagmittar Sain Bhagat & Ors. (supra), the complaint filed was not maintainable before the District Forum under the provisions of the Act.
17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. Jagmittar Sain Bhagat & Ors. (supra), decided on 11.07.2013, cited its Order in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs. Bhavani, AIR 2008 SC 2957, decided on 22.04.2008, wherein an employee, being a Member of Employees’ Provident Fund and Family Pension Scheme, 1971, was held to be a Consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii). In this Order, it was held as under:

“In our view, the respondent comes squarely within the definition of 'consumer' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii), inasmuch as, by becoming a member of the Employees' Family Pension Scheme, 1971, and contributing to the same, she was availing of the services rendered by the appellant for implementation of the Scheme. The same is the case in the other appeals as well.”

18.   In my considered view, the application of the Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ministry of Water Resources & Ors. (supra) may not be appropriate in this case, whereas the Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (supra) is applicable and therefore, I hold the Respondent No. 1 / Complainant has a right to get redressal in this Commission for deficiency on the party of the Petitioners, who had denied him the pensionary benefit for certain period and therefore, are liable to pay the interest on the amount which the Petitioner had paid belatedly on the Order of the Regional Fund Commissioner. It is also worth taking a note that both the State Commission and the District Forum have directed payment of the interest amount of Rs. 40,494.50 to the Respondent No. 1.  Even in the Judgment in Ministry of Water Resources & Ors. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed the Complainant to withdraw the amount deposited by the Appellants (Ministry of Water Resources & Ors.) even after holding the Complaint to be non-maintainable.
19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Petitioners shall pay an amount of Rs. 40,495/- to the Respondent No. 1 / Complainant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. 01.08.2006 till realization within a period of ten weeks of this Order, failing which the rate of interest shall increase to 9% per annum for the same period.