Kuldip Singh vs MANAGER, BANK OF INDIA

THE appellant/complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) had filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (hereinafter called the District Forum) for recovery of the part-payment of General Provident Fund (hereinafter called GPF) from opposite party No. 3, i.e. THE Executive Engineer (Design), Ranjit Sagar Design Organisation, I-B Punjab, Chandigarh (hereinafter called the opposite party No. 3).

THE complaint was dismissed on the ground that the claim of the complainant for recovery of amount of GPF from opposite party No. 3 was not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the C.P.A.) as the complainant could not be held as a consumer as defined in the C.P.A. Undisputedly, the complainant is a government servant and the amount of GPF was sanctioned in his favour by Chief Engineer, Irrigation (Works) Punjab. Learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr. K.L. Arora contends that the complainant falls under the definition of ''a consumer'' as mentioned in the C.P.A. and the complaint was, thus, maintainable before the District Forum. He relies upon a judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Shiv Kumar, III (1999) CPJ 36 (SC)=X (1999) SLT 395=2000 LAB.IC 232, wherein it has been held that an employee, member of Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter called 1952 Scheme) framed under the provisions of Employees Provident Fund and the Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter called the EPF & MPA, 1952) is a consumer under the C.P.A. and thus his claim should have been allowed by the District Forum.

On the other hand, Mr. A.G. Massi, learned Dy. Advocate General, Punjab, has contended that the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court referred to above is not applicable to the case of the complainant, who admittedly is a government employee and whose case is governed by the Punjab General Provident Fund Rules, 1936 (hereinafter called GPF Rules). The Hon''ble Supreme Court in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Shiv Kumar Joshi (supra), was dealing with an employee, member of Employees Provident Fund Scheme under EPF & MPA, 1952 and not with a government employee governed by Provident Fund Act, 1925 or under the various State General Provident Fund Acts/Rules. To substantiate his argument, the learned Dy. Advocate General, Punjab has relied upon the order of the Hon''ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter called the Hon''ble National Commission) in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Faridabad v. Shiv Kumar Joshi, I (1996) CPJ 199 (NC)=1996 (1) CPC 440. In Shiv Kumar''s case (supra), the complainant was a subscriber under the provisions of Employees Provident Fund Scheme and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, being an employee of an industrial establishment, with the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Faridabad and had to his credit the contribution made by him as well as by his employer. The Hon''ble National Commission in its order dated 30.1.1996, as stated above, ruled that the Commissioner constituted under the 1952 Scheme and 1952 Act extended out services within the meaning of Section 2(1)(o) of C.P.A. to the subscriber for consideration and the complainant in that case was considered as a consumer under the C.P.A. The Hon''ble National Commission in the same order has held that the position was different to the maintenance of provident fund under the Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952 or under the various State General Provident Fund Acts/Rules, as under these provisions the subscriber of the provident fund cannot be considered as a consumer under the C.P.A. It is the same order of the Hon''ble National Commission which was challenged before the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 411 of 1997 and the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Shiv Kumar''s case (supra), affirmed the order of the Hon''ble National Commission.

LEARNED Counsel for the appellant further contends that the provisions of Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and Employees Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 and GPF Rules are pari-materia with each other and thus the complainant be also termed as a consumer in view of the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, referred to above. We are not inclined to accept this contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant as we are bound by the order of the Hon''ble National Commission in Shiv Kumar''s case (supra), affirmed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Appeal No. 411 of 1997 as stated above, wherein it has been clearly held that a subscriber to the General Provident Fund under the State General Provident Fund Rules is not covered under the definition of ''a consumer'' under the C.P.A. Relevant portion of the order of the Hon''ble National Commission is reproduced as under : "The position, however, is different to the maintenance of the provident fund under the Provident Fund Act, 1925 or under the various State General Provident Fund Acts/Rules. The responsibility of maintaining the account relating to the amount of Provident Fund Account of a government employee (Central or State) to whom the said provisions are applicable have been assigned to the Accountant General. A statutory duty has been cast upon Accountant General in this respect. The Government pays to the credit of account holder interest at such rates as may be determined for each year by the Government. There are various other rules, which need not be mentioned dealing with the rights and liabilities of a subscriber in regard to the amount of his provident fund. Those provisions show that the element of service as contemplated by the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, or of any consideration, therefor, so as to bring a subscriber within the definition of a ''consumer'' is absolutely lacking. It is on these considerations that in Central Bank of India v. Dil Bahadur Singh (supra), which was the case relating to the payment of provident fund of a Bank employee of a nationalised Bank was considered and decided by this Commission. The responsibility in compiling and maintaining the General Provident Fund Accounts by the Government or Public Undertakings is in discharge of statutory responsibility and the source of his authority is not the said Act and the 1952 Scheme. The contrary view taken by the Delhi State Commission was in the case of M.K. Sangal v. Accountant General (supra), which fails to notice that the maintenance of the Provident Fund Account by the Accountant General is in exercise of statutory powers and perhaps this view was taken without drawing a distinction to the functions of the Commissioners under the said Act and the 1952 Schemes. In the result the revision petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs but for the reasons recorded above."

IN view of our discussion made above, we hold that the complainant could not be considered as a consumer under the C.P.A. and his complaint could not be entertained under the C.P. Act. This appeal is, thus, dismissed, however, without any order as to costs. The complainant is at liberty to approach any other Authority/Forum for the redressal of his grievance, if so advised, in accordance with law. Appeal dismissed.