PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT RIPUDAMAN COLLEGE, NABHA vs NARENDER PAL KAUR GILL

THIS appeal is by the opposite party, Principal, Government Ripudaman College, Nabha, District Patiala dated February 14,1997 directing him to disburse the amount of Rs. 81,675/- alongwith interest thereon @18% p.a. w.e.f April 1,1996 i.e. Rs. 15,000/- and cost of Rs. 2.000/-. Further direction was given that the appellant in his personal capacity would be liable to pay the interest and cost. The amount was claimed by Mrs. Narender Pal Kaur Gill who was earlier working as Lecturer (Punjabi) with Government College, Nabha. She worked there upto January 10, 1996 and was promoted as Principal, Government College, Zira from where she retired on March 31,1996. The claim was for the amount of gratuity due to her alongwith interest as the same was not disbursed by the Accountant General (A & E), Punjab, opposite party No. 2. It is not necessary to give further details of the pleadings of the parties. Suffice it to say that the claim was contested and preliminary objections were taken regarding jurisdiction of District Forum to entertain the complaint and that the complainant was not a consumer as defined. On merits, the District Forum passed the order as referred to above.

THE National Commission as back as 1994 in Central Bank of India v. Dil Bahadur Singh, 1994 CPC 15 decided that with respect to payment of General Provident Fund, an employee of the Bank should not be treated as a consumer having hired services of the Bank for consideration. THE payment of the Provident Fund should not be said to be rendering services under the Consumer Protection Act. This decision was subsequently relied upon by different State Commissions such as Madhya Pradesh, Bihar and Tamil Nadu. All these cases were subsequently referred to in the judgment of Uttar Pradesh State Commission in Sukhvir Singh v. THE Superintendent Engineer and Another, 1995 (1) CPC 537. That was also a case of payment of Provident Fund from the account of the complainant which was being maintained by the opposite party. It was held that the matter was covered by the G. Provident Fund Rules and the complainant was not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. This Commission has also taken up similar view with regard to G.P. Fund and Pension. In the case of gratuity also, there is no question of the complainant hiring services of the opposite party (the State Government) No. 2, Accountant General, for consideration that he could be treated as a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. Mr. Mohinder Singh, Advocate for the complainant/respondent relied upon the two decisions Basudev Dalai v. Genelec Limited and Ors, (1997) 5 CTJ 566 and Senior Treasury Officer, Faizabad v. Baldeo Prasad Morya, II (1997) CPJ 567=(1997) 5 CTJ 859, of Uttar Pradesh State Commission. In these cases, no specific decision was given about the status of the complainants as consumers to claim the relief under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. In one case, point was sought to be raised in the appeal which was not permitted. Such decisions cannot be treated as precedent to be followed wherein no decision on the question raised was made. In the present case, the complainant happens to be a Member of the District Forum and is expected to be fully conversant with the law on the subject. Resort to the proceedings under Consumer Protection Act by the complainant in the Forum in which she was herself a Member, on a matter which was outside the scope of the Consumer Protection Act, is nothing but abuse of process of law.

For the reasons recorded above, the order of the District Forum is set aside. The appeal is allowed with cost of Rs. 1,000/-. Appeal allowed with cost.