ORDER

(Per: Mrs. Veena Sharma, Member):

This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed by the appellants-opposite parties against the order dated 15.04.2010 passed by the District Forum, Uttarkashi in consumer complaint No. 64 of 2008.  By the impugned order, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 10,235/- together with interest @ 8% per annum from August, 2008 to the date of actual payment and Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 2,000/- for litigation expenses, within a month from the date of order, failing which the complainant shall be entitled to get interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing the consumer complaint till the date of payment.

2.       Briefly stated the facts of the case, as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant-Sh. Pradhuman Nautiyal had retired on 31.07.2004 from Government Inter College, Jivya, Kotdhar, District Uttarkashi.  At the time or retirement Rs. 1,35,723/- was saved in complainant’s G.P.F. account bearing No. K-B.D.U/10851. The opposite parties did not pay 90% (i.e. Rs. 1,22,000/-) of the said amount at the time of his retirement. The complainant received the said 90% amount of the total G.P.F. account on February, 2006, but no interest was paid on this amount.  The opposite parties alleged that on 20.01.2000 Rs. 27,000/- through voucher No. 64, on 25.03.2000 Rs. 1,20,000/- through voucher No. 71 and on 01.10.2002 Rs. 29,000/-, the total sum of Rs. 1,76,000/- had been withdrawn from complainant’s G.P.F. account, while the complainant denied to withdraw the said amount from his G.P.F. account, rather the opposite party No. 1 has sent a notice to the complainant for recovery of Rs. 2,98,089/-.  The complainant asked interest @ 8% per annum on the amount of Rs. 1,35,723/-, i.e. 90% of the G.P.F. amount from 01.04.2004 to 24.03.2006, which is Rs. 21,714/- and also 8% interest on the rest 10% amount of G.P.F., i.e. Rs. 1,446/- for the period of four years four months from the date 01.04.2004 till the date of filing the complaint.  Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Uttarkashi for Rs. 37,817.80ps. together with interest @ 12% per annum on the said amount, Rs. 10,000/- towards damages and Rs. 5,000/- for litigation expenses. 

3.       The opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 have filed their written statement before the District Forum and admitted that they had paid Rs. 1,49,682/- to the complainant alongwith interest.  The opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 have paid    Rs. 1,22,100/-, i.e. 90% of the G.P.F. amount and balance 10% of G.P.F. amount Rs. 13,623/- has been paid with interest of Rs. 13,959/- till the month of July, 2008 according to the rules. The opposite parties have paid total sum of Rs. 1,49,682/- to the complainant, therefore, no dues are balanced against the opposite party Nos. 2 & 3.

4.       The opposite party No. 1 has not filed any written statement before the District Forum, therefore, the consumer complaint was proceeded exparte against the opposite party No. 1.

5.       The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 15.04.2010.  Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite parties-appellants have filed the present appeal before this Commission. 

6.       We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have also gone through the record.  None has appeared on behalf of the respondent despite proper service of the notice.

7.       Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the District Forum has failed to appreciate the facts of the case.  In the grounds of appeal, the appellants have stated that the Forum below has simply gone through the averments of the complainant and has not taken into consideration the submissions raised by the opposite parties-appellants.  He further stated that the District Forum has not considered the territorial jurisdiction because the case of G.P.F. does not come in the purview of the Consumer Fora. 

8.       The appellants have filed an affidavit of Sh. Sajjad Ahmad Khan, Senior Account Officer, Office, Accountant General, Uttarakhand, Dehradun (paper Nos. 6 to 7).

9.       In a case of Jagmittar Sain Bhagat (Dr.) vs. Director, Health Services, Haryana & Ors.; III (2013) CPJ 22 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a Government servant cannot raise any dispute regarding his service conditions or for payment of gratuity or GPF or any of his retiral benefits before any constituted Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 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 Hon’ble Apex Court has also held that the appropriate Forum for redressal of any of his grievances may be State Administrative Tribunal, if any, or Civil Court but certainly not a Forum under the Act.

10.     According to Section 2(o)(6)(iv) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 “the government servants and the staff of the Accountant General Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General maintains the records of provident fund of government servants, issue slips of deposits of fund and on retirement final payments are made to the subscribers.  The government servants and the staff of the Accountant General in discharging their duties does not render any service for consideration, nor hiring of any service is involved hence, maintenance of General Provident Fund Accounts does not fall within the meaning of ‘service’.”

11.     We considered the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants.  After going through the Hon’ble Apex Court’s decision given in the case of “Jagmittar Sain Bhagat (Dr.) vs. Director, Health Services, Haryana & Ors. (supra), we are of the view that the District Forum had made a gross legal error by entertaining the consumer complaint filed by the complainant–respondent. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the consumer complaint filed by the complainant-respondent was not maintainable before the District Forum and, hence, the impugned order passed by the District Forum is liable to be set aside.

12.     Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 15.04.2010 passed by the District Forum, Uttarkashi is set aside and the consumer complaint No. 64 of 2008 is dismissed, as being not maintainable before the District Forum.  However, as per the view taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above decision, the respondent will be at liberty to approach the appropriate Forum/Court for redressal of his grievances. No order as to costs.

 (MRS. VEENA SHARMA)                     (D.K. TYAGI)                      (JUSTICE B.S. VERMA)