ORDER
(Per: Mrs. Veena Sharma, Member):
This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed by the appellant-opposite party No. 2 against the order dated 06.06.2007 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 44 of 2006. By the impugned order, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the opposite party No. 2 to pay interest of one year on provident fund’s amount Rs. 9,33,675/- to the complainant and also to pay an amount payable under review process and Rs. 1,000/- as litigation expenses, within one month from the date of order.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint are that the complainant Sh. Satish Chand Gupta was the Senior Executive Engineer in Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Haridwar (BHEL) from where he took V.R.S. (Voluntary Retirement Scheme) and he was relieved from the said post on 24.09.1999. At the time of retirement, his provident fund in which BHEL’s contribution were also added was deposited in BHEL. The opposite party-company (BHEL) pays interest on the total amount of provident fund. From 31.03.2001 to 31.03.2003 interest was added to his provident fund amount. When the complainant demanded his provident fund amount on 31.03.2004, he came to know that the amount of complainant’s contribution Rs. 4,71,741/- as well as the company’s contribution Rs. 4,61,934/-, a total sum of Rs. 9,33,675/-, the opposite party was ready to pay, but no interest was paid by the opposite parties to the complainant on the said amount. While the opposite parties have used the amount of Rs. 9,33,675/- of the complainant till one year and on 09.04.2004 a cheque without interest was given to the complainant, which shows deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, therefore, the complainant has filed the consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar.
3. The opposite party No. 1 has filed the written statement and has pleaded that no fund of the complainant had been deposited with the answering opposite party. If the complainant has any grievance about his provident fund, then he should file the suit in Civil Court and, therefore, the District Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the case. The answering opposite party further stated that BHEL sent the deducted provident fund’s amount to Employee’s Provident Fund Trust. The answering opposite party is only responsible to deduct the provident fund’s amount from the complainant’s salary, so there is no deficiency in service on their part.
After an amendment in the consumer complaint, the Secretary of BHEL, Employee’s Provident Fund, Haridwar was made party. In the written statement, he stated that after 7 years of complainant’s retirement, he was made party, so the case is time barred. According to the written statement the complainant is not entitled to get any interest from 31.03.2003 to 31.03.2004, because no complaint has been filed before the Employee’s Provident Fund Trust. If the complainant has any complaint against the Employee’s Provident Fund Trust, then he should file the suit in Civil Court because the District Forum has no jurisdiction. A circular dated 09.10.2001 has been circulated, where it is mentioned that “ex-members are continuing their balances with the Trust even beyond three years. It is informed to all concerned that the PF balance of such ex-members, whose employment with BHEL has ceased beyond three years, if continued after 31.10.2001, will be transferred to the Ex-members – “Unclaimed Account” without any further notice to the concerned individual. The Trust may not be liable to pay any interest on the amount transferred to above Unclaimed Account.” Inspite of this, there is also a law that after retirement if any employee does not withdraw his provident fund’s amount and continued it for more than three years, then the amount should be transferred in Unclaimed Account and no interest will be paid in these accounts. This amount has been completed three years since the complainant’s retirement and the complainant never claimed the provident fund’s amount from Employee’s Provident Fund Trust, so that he cannot avail interest on the money deposited with Employee’s Provident Fund Trust, therefore, there is no deficiency on the part of answering opposite party.
4. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 06.06.2007. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party No. 2-appellant has filed the present appeal before this Commission.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the District Forum has failed to appreciate the facts of the case. In the grounds of appeal, the appellant has stated that the Forum below has simply gone through the averments made by the complainant and has not taken into consideration the submissions raised by the opposite parties. He further stated that the District Forum has not considered the territorial jurisdiction because the case of Provident Fund does not come in the purview of the Consumer Fora.
7. The appellant has filed an affidavit of Sh. Subodh Gupta, Deputy General Manager (Finance) & Secretary, Employee’s Provident Fund Trust, BHEL, Ranipur, Haridwar (paper Nos. 20 to 21) and a Circular dated 09.10.2001 (translated in Hindi) of BHEL Employee’s Provident Fund Trust, Ranipur, Haridwar (paper Nos. 27 & 28). The appellant has also filed an affidavit of Sh. Deepak Tandon, Deputy Manager (Finance), BHEL, Ranipur, Haridwar (paper Nos. 34 & 35).
8. On the other side, the respondent No. 1-complainant has filed his own affidavit (paper Nos. 16 to 19).
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 parties. 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 No.1. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the consumer complaint filed by the complainant-respondent No. 1 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 06.06.2007 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar is set aside and the consumer complaint No. 44 of 2006 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 No. 1-complainant will be at liberty to approach the appropriate Forum/Court for redressal of his grievances. No order as to costs.