EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, UTTARANCHAL JAL SANSTHAN AND ORS Vs. D K RASTOGI S/O BHUKHAN SHARAN RASTOGI AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT was the opposite party in consumer complaint No. 363 of 2007 filed by complainant Sh. D.K. Rastogi, Retired Engineer of the Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan, in order to have his GPF passbook released by his employer (appellant) to facilitate drawal of his accumulated GPF of Rs. 30,432/ -. The District Forum by order dated 26.06.2008, allowed the said complaint with cost of Rs. 2,000/ - and directed the appellant to release the total sum deposited in the GPF of the complainant by handing over the GPF passbook to the complainant within the stipulated period. The GPF of the complainant had not been released despite retirement of the complainant, on account of the fact that the complainant, at the time of his relieving for further continuation of service in the State of Uttar Pradesh on 05.07.2004, gave undertaking that he shall vacate the government accommodation in his occupation within a period of three months and shall also deposit / pay the electricity dues since the month of June, 1998 till vacation of the accommodation, but till date, has not done so, so as to entitle him for release of GPF and delivery of his GPF passbook to him. The District Forum, in allowing the consumer complaint, rejected the said contention of the appellant, by observing that the complainant after his retirement had handed over the possession of the official residence on 31.03.2007 to Nagar Palika Parishad, Roorkee and further had also been issued No Objection Certificate in respect of any dues by the Nagar Palika Parishad, Roorkee. According to the District Forum, the appellant, under these circumstances, made deficiency in service in not releasing the GPF of the complainant by giving him his GPF passbook and allowed the complaint by the impugned order, as stated above. Aggrieved by the impugned order, appellant filed this appeal.

(2.) CONTENTIONS raised by the learned counsel for the parties, give rise to the following points for consideration in this appeal:

(3.) POINT No. (i) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the dispute raised by the complainant would not fall within the purview of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, in view of the complainant not being the "consumer" of the appellant and that, therefore, the order impugned can not legally be maintained. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant urged that the employer of the complainant had been rendering "service" for consideration in maintaining the GPF account of the complainant, whose contribution had been deducted regularly by his employer and withholding of the passbook and the amount of the GPF of the complainant despite his retirement, tantamount to deficiency in service by the employer appellant. In support of the argument, learned counsel placed reliance on the following decisions: