ACCOUNTANT GENERAL vs MANGE RAM

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 5.5.2004 passed by District Forum Hisar, whereby while accepting the complaint filed by the respondent-complainant, direction has been given to the appellant-opposite party No. 2 to prepare a fresh statement of account and the amount which still remains, must be paid to the complainant within three months along with interest @ 10% per annum from the date it became due till payment. It was further directed that if the balance amount has already been paid, then the Accountant General (A & E) is directed to pay interest on the delayed payment from the date it became due up to the date the payment has been made.

THE backdrop of the circumstances which led to the filing of the present complaint needs to be noticed in the forefront. Mange Ram complainant was employed in the Police department and was having GPF account No. HR-POL-9475 with Accountant General (A&E), Haryana, Chandigarh. While he was posted as Inspector, he retired from the service on 30.11.2000. THE GPF account slips which were received by the complainant on verification were found to be discrepant and approached the appellant to correct the same. Finding no response from them, he filed the present complaint with the prayer that the appellant may be directed to issue fresh GPF slips along with interest. He also claimed that he was entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 5,59,788 which amount has been wrongly shown by the appellant in the deduction in the account slips from 1997 onwards. The claim was contested by the both the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2, who filed their separate written statements. It was pleaded by opposite party No. 1 that at the time the complainant was employed with H.S.E.B. on 19.6.1996 he was allotted G.P.F. account bearing No. HR-POL-9473 by the A.G. (A & E), Haryana and the deductions made have been credited to his said account which is maintained by the A.G. (A & E), Haryana. It was further explained that a sum of Rs. 1,28,300 on account of regular monthly subscription and Rs. 34,813 on account of ADA instalments were credited to the GPF subscription of the complainant and sent to the A.G. (A & E), Haryana, Chandigarh through cheques. The receipt of the above mentioned amount has been confirmed by the A.G. (A&E), Haryana Chandigarh vide its letter No. Funds-13/POL/CC/2001-02/1185-92 dated 12.11.2001 and under these circumstances the complaint merited dismissal.

The opposite party No. 2 in their separate written reply took up the stand that the GPF subscriptions pertaining to the year 1969-70 from the date of opening of the account till 1995-96 had been regularly credited in the GPF account No. HR-POL-9475 held by the complainant and this factual position has been depicted in the GPF statements issued year wise to the complainant. While denying the allegations of the complainant about the non-adjustment of the subscription amount as alleged by the complainant, it was further pleaded that in the year 1996-97 the complainant had gone on deputation with Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Hissar and the subscription amount was transferred to the opposite party No. 2 through cheques and the delay in adjustment of subscription of the complainant took place because of the time taken in the clearance of the cheques which led to the late deposit of the amount of the cheques in the GPF account of the complainant and the position in this regard was duly communicated to the complainant. It was further stated that the matter in which delay had taken place with regard to the clearance of the cheques was taken up with the State Bank of India and as per the advice of the said bank the department concerned was directed to supply immediate data on which the department''s account was debited with the amount of the concerned cheques so that the necessary steps for clearance of the cheques could be taken with the said bank. The requisite information has not been received back despite various reminders and even the complainant has failed to provide the necessary information in this regard. The cheque Annexure R-IV was returned to the department with the request that the demand draft be supplied immediately as the cheques were returned by the State Bank of India for want of funds in the bank account. No response was received and for that reason no fault can be attributed to opposite party No. 2 on that amount. It was further averred that the GPF account of the complainant have been reviewed and the subscription pointed out in the last Annexure R-XVI could not be adjusted for want of necessary date from the department and also because of the non-supply of the demand draft in lieu of the said cheques returned to the department. It was again stated that after the clearance of the cheques bearing No. 997196 dated 27.10.1999 Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani was authorized to collect the amount of Rs. 4,137 vide letter dated 26.6.2001 for making the payment to the complainant and the extract of the total calculation of Rs. 5,59,788 was appended as Annexure R-XXVII. In view of the above stated position, it was maintained by the opposite party No. 2 that there was no deficiency of service on its part.

THE District Forum on appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record accepted the complaint and issued direction as noticed in the earlier part of the order. It is thereafter the present appeal has been filed by the appellant-opposite party No. 2. We have heard Mr. Sandeep Yadav, AAG for the appellant as well as respondent in person.

AT the threshold of the arguments, the learned AAG has contended that the District Forum had wrongly rejected the objection raised from the side of the appellant that the complainant being not a consumer under the provisions of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1986) is not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the District Forum. The District Forum while dealing with the objection raised in this regard had taken notice of the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Shiv Kumar Joshi, III (1999) CPJ 36 (SC)=X (1999) SLT 395=2000-1 LLJ 296 (Supreme Court) wherein it was held that Member of Provident Fund Scheme is a consumer. On fact, it was held that in the present case, it is clearly proved on record from the various documents including the additional affidavit dated 26.4.2004 of Shri Om Prakash Sharma, Accounts Officer, wherein details of the documents which were sent to the Accountant General, Haryana in respect of GPF contribution of Police staff including Mange Ram complainant was indicated and it was found that the cheques mentioned in the affidavit were payable at State Bank of Patiala at Hissar but the office of the A.G. Haryana, Chandigarh had sent the cheques to the State Bank of India at Chandigarh. It was further observed that due to the mistake of the State Bank of India, Chandigarh the cheques were sent to the State Bank of Patiala at Chandigarh instead of State Bank of Patiala at Hissar, which resulted in dis-honour of the cheques. In this process, the validity of period of cheques expired and consequently fresh cheques were issued and sent to the A.G. Haryana and after the amount was cleared and encashed from the State Bank of Patiala, Hissar it was credited to the account of the complainant-Mange Ram as well as other subscribers. On that basis of the above circumstances, the District Forum recorded a finding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. So far as factual findings of the District Forum are concerned, the same has not been even disputed by the AAG, Haryana, we find merit in the stand taken from the side of the appellant that the District Forum has come to the erroneous finding by concluding that the complainant is a consumer. Our attention has been drawn by the learned AAG representing the appellant to the Revision Petition No. 961 of 1997, The Comptroller & Auditor General of India & Another v. Shiv Kant Shankar Naik and Three Others, I (2003) CPJ 276 (NC), revision petitions decided by the Hon''ble National Commission on 13.12.2002 whereby in all four other revisions have been decided by a common judgment. In these revision petitions, one of the contention raised was whether the complainants in the complaints, in the batch of the revision petitions filed, were consumers, having a right to invoke the jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Dealing with the same, it was observed as under: We may also note that duties and powers of the Comptroller and Auditor General''s have already been prescribed under the Comptroller and Auditor General (Duties, Powers and Conditions of Service) Act, 1971. We do not think it necessary for us to refer this enactment of the decision of the present controversy. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Shiv Kumar Joshi, X (1999) SLT 395=(2000) 1 SCC 98, is clearly distinguishable as that was related to the interpretation of the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the Scheme framed thereunder. Shiv Kumar Joshi was not a Government employee. Here in this batch of revision petitions all the complainants were State Government employees and as such governed by the statutory rules applicable to their respective service and for the purpose of raising service dispute to go the State Administrative Tribunal wherever established or to any authority except to the Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 also wherever established. We hold that dispute raised by the complainant-respondents is not consumer dispute and they are not ''consumer'' and Accountant Generals are not rendering any service within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It may also be noticed that the State Government, in the exercise of its power has jurisdiction to give instructions not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and the statutory rules on that subject. We, therefore, allow all these revision petitions and set aside the orders of the District Forums and the State Commissions and dismiss the complaints. In view of the position of law explained in the above judgment, the stand taken from the side of the appellant has to be accepted as admittedly the complainant was the employee of the State Government, Haryana when he retired as Inspector of Police on 30.11.2000. The dispute raised by him is relating to the period when he served with the State Government and is to be construed as a service dispute. Consequently, the complainant cannot be construed as a consumer and for that reason he has no right to invoke the jurisdiction of the District Forum by filing the present complaint.

FOR the aforesaid reasons, we accept the appeal. While setting aside the impugned order, the complaint is dismissed. Appeal allowed.