UNION OF INDIA Vs. RAM DAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the concurrent findings and orders passed by Fora below, Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Defence has filed this petition in order to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complaint before the District Consumer Forum was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties i.e. The Secretary, Ministry of Defence; JCDA (Funds), Meerut Cantt; DGOS (OS-8C), Army Head Quarters; the Commandant, Ordnance Depot, Bharatpur, Rajas than for their failure to disburse the amount of Rs. 24,374 lying in the Provident Fund account of the complainant. The opposite parties contested the complaint inter alia on the ground that the District Consumer Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint like the present one filed by the complainant as the complainant was a Central Government employee even assuming that the amount of Provident Fund was not disbursed. The District Consumer Forum repelled the said objection and allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to remit a sum of Rs. 24,374 to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 13.7.2001 till its payment along with compensation of Rs. 2,000 and cost of Rs. 1,000. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which was dismissed by the State Commission by means of a cryptic and perfunctory order without even referring to the facts and circumstances of the case what to talk of dealing with any contention raised by the appellant in the grounds of appeal.

(2.) We have heard Mr. Rajesh Katyal, learned Counsel for the petitioners and the respondent in person and have considered their respective submissions.

(3.) Leaned Counsel for the petitioners on the strength of decision of this Commission in the batch of Revision Petition No. 961 of 1997, The Comptroller & Auditor General of India & Anr. V. Shiv Kant Shankar Naik, 2003 1 CPJ 276 (NC), has urged that the Consumer Fora had erred in entertaining the complaint relating to the present grievance of the complainant. We find force in this contention because admittedly the complainant was employed as a Fire Engine Driver in the ordnance depot under the Ministry of Defence and, therefore, he was a Central Government employee within the meaning of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, which is prior in time. This legislation provides for the redressal of the grievances of the employees of the Central Government employee. Taking note of the provisions of the said Act this Commission in the above noted case had clearly held that the dispute raised by the complainant was not a consumer dispute nor the complainant was a consumer as the Accountant General was not rendering any service to the complainant within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act 1986. This decision was followed with the approval in revision petition No. 3878 of 2009, Om Prakash Sethi v. Accountant General, Haryana (A &E), 2010 3 CPJ 289 (NC)=decided on 6.7.2010, thereby making a clearcut distinction between the case that comes under the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and otherwise.