ACCOUNTANT GENERAL vs PANDURANG MARUTI INGAWALE

-THERE is delay of 10 days in filing the appeal. Delay is of few days. Delay is not intentional or deliberate. We are, therefore, inclined to condone the delay. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the District Consumer Forum, Satara in Consumer Complaint No. 299/2000, whereby the Forum below was pleased to direct Accountant General of Maharashtra to pay interest @ 18% p. a. on complainant''s G. P. F. amount of Rs. 1,97,501 for the period from 1. 2. 1997 to 29. 4. 1998 within a period of 30 days from the date of order and also imposed compensation of Rs. 1,000 and cost of Rs. 500.

WE perused the impugned order. We are finding that respondent Mr. Pandurang Maruti Ingawale was in judicial service of Government of Maharashtra as Bailiff. He retired as Head Bailiff from Phaltan on 31. 1. 1997. He was member of Government Provident Fund. His provident fund was deducted from his salary every month as per rules of the Government. It was pleaded by the complainant that he had withdrawn P. F. amount during his service tenure and same has been duly refunded by him. However on 31. 1. 1997 when complainant got retired an amount of Rs. 1,97,501 was in balance in his G. P. F. account bearing No. AJMH/16877. He pleaded further that he had applied for payment of Provident Fund dues through Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dahiwadi who was having charge of Phaltan Court. However, said form was submitted to Provident Fund Department after 11 months. After due scrutiny of the said form, the complainant was paid an amount of Rs. 2,05,005 on 29. 4. 1998. No interest for delay of 11 months was paid to the complainant while paying him interest on the said amount. According to complainant he ought to have received Rs. 29,622 @ 12% p. a. on Rs. 19,750 for the period from 1. 2. 1997 to 29. 4. 1998. However, he received amount of Rs. 7,504 from O. P. No. 1. He, therefore, filed consumer complaint for alleging deficiency in service on the part of Accountant General office of Maharashtra. O. P. No. 1 Accountant General of Maharashtra did not put in appearance and did not file written statement despite service of notice. Hence it was proceeded ex parte.

O. P. Nos. 2 and 3 filed written statement and denied the allegations made by the complainant. They submitted that G. P. F. claim of the complainant duly filled in was forwarded to the P. F. Department by the Sr. Clerk Mr. Phansalkar of Phaltan Court, 3 months prior to the date of retirement of complainant in November 1996. Said fact is admitted by the complainant. Hence complainant did not make any complaint to that effect till December 1997. O. Ps. pleaded that complaint pertaining to late submission of his P. F. claim was false. Complainant attempted to make false allegations against juniors by making contradictory statement in para 7 of the complaint. Complainant making applications belatedly and somebody from District Court, Satara forwarding the application of the complainant belatedly to the P. F. office is the issue involved and according to appellant, same was under inquiry at various levels in District Court, Satara. Therefore, complainant''s grievance that O. Ps. had deliberately made delayed payment was false and frivolous. O. Ps. further pleaded that O. P. No. 1 had duly attempted to pay interest on the amount of Rs. 22,121 to the complainant. O. P. Nos. 2 and 3 were not at all concerned with the said amount. O. P. Nos. 2 and 3 were employees of the department. They had no right to take independent decision. They were simply employees working in Judicial Section. They had to act upon G. P. F. slip issued by O. P. No. 1 and they had committed no deficiency in service, as far as complainant''s G. P. F. amount is concerned. It is pertinent to note that O. P. No. 1, who is appellant herein, had not filed written statement in the Forum below and, therefore, acting upon the written statement filed by O. P. Nos. 2 and 3, Forum below jumped to the conclusion that there was clear-cut deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and, therefore, Forum below was pleased to pass order against Accountant General office of Mumbai.

WE heard Mr. Vinod Joshi-Advocate for the appellant and none for the respondent. It is well settled that the Accountant General office is established by Central Government. It is working directly under Controller and Auditor General of India to look after the accounts work of Government of Maharashtra. Their functions are statutory one. They are discharging sovereign functions of Government of India. They are not service providers at all. So there cannot be deficiency in service on the part of office of Accountant General of Maharashtra. They are simply maintaining Government accounts and they are only answerable to Controller of Auditor General of India and to none other else. Order passed by the Forum below is per se illegal, bad in law and cannot be allowed to sustain in law.

LEARNED Counsel for the appellant relied upon order passed by National Commission in Revision Petition No. 961/97 and four other connected revision petitions, wherein Hon''ble National Commission clearly held that dispute between complainant and Accountant General is not a dispute, which can be agitated by filing consumer complaint. National Commission further held in the last para of this judgment that dispute raised by the complainants/respondents is not ''consumer dispute'' and they are not ''consumers'' and Accountant Generals are not running any service within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It also observed that the State Government in the exercise of its power has jurisdiction to give instructions not inconsistent with the provision of the Act and the Statutory Rules on that subject. Orders passed by the District Consumer Forums and State Commissions were quashed and set aside and complaints involving those petitions were dismissed. This ruling is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of our case. We also reiterate relying on ruling of National Commission, there cannot be dispute between complainant on one hand and Accountant General of Maharashtra on the other hand, because Accountant General of Maharashtra is not providing any service within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (o) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and it is for this reason, order passed by the Forum below has got to be quashed and set aside. As such, we pass following order: ORDER 1. Appeal is allowed. 2. Both the misc. applications stand disposed of. 3. Impugned order under challenge is quashed and set aside. 4. Complaint stands dismissed. 5. Parties are left to bear their own cost. 6. Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties.

Appeal allowed.