Maharashtra

StateCommission

A/09/1443

ANANDA SAKHARAM JADHAV - Complainant(s)

Versus

SMT VALSA SUNNY SIMIAR - Opp.Party(s)

M OAK

09 Sep 2010

ORDER


BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
First Appeal No. A/09/1443
(Arisen out of Order Dated 17/11/2009 in Case No. 489/09 of District Satara)
1. ANANDA SAKHARAM JADHAV39 SHANIWAR PETH, KARAD, DIST. SATARA ...........Appellant(s)

Versus
1. SMT VALSA SUNNY SIMIAR ACCOUNT OFFICER, THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL,MAHARASHTRA STATE (PPF-13), 101, MAHARSHI KARVE ROAD, MUMBAI- 202. THE PRINCIPAL, A.S. PANTA, GOVT. ENGG. COLLEGE, KARAD, DIST. SATARA.3. THE TREASURY OFFICER, SATARA4. SHRI J. P. CHOUDHARI,ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, INDUSTRIAL TRAINING (ADMINISTRATION), REGIONAL OFFICE, PUNE-16 ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE :
Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar PRESIDING MEMBERHon'ble Mrs. S.P.Lale Member
PRESENT :M OAK , Advocate for the Appellant 1

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

Per Mr.P.N.Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member

Heard Mr.M.H.Oak-Advocate for the appellant.  Notice need not be issued to the respondent because complaint as filed by the appellant in the forum below was complaint regarding accounting of provident fund deducted from the Government employee by Government Engineering College, Karad.  So dispute is between employer and employee and this is not a dispute between ‘consumer’ and ‘service provider’ Accountant General and for that matter respondent added in this appeal cannot be said to be a service provider and, therefore, this dispute is beyond the scope of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Forum below by passing order below Exhibit-1 rightly dismissed the complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Said order is confirmed.  We do not find substance in appeal.  Hence the order:-

                                                ORDER

Appeal is summarily rejected.

Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.

 

 

PRONOUNCED :
Dated : 09 September 2010

[Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar]PRESIDING MEMBER[Hon'ble Mrs. S.P.Lale]Member