ACCOUNTANT GENERAL Vs. R MUTHUSAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant who is a retired Government servant approached the lower Forum stating that he has not been so far paid the commutation of Rs.54,351/- + gratuity of Rs.4,696/- and that he wrote several reminders and that therefore he had to move the Consumer Forum for necessary relief.

(2.) The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dindigul accepted the complaint and directed payment of Rs.54,351/- towards commutation along with gratuity of Rs.4,696/- with interest at 12% per annum + a compensation of Rs.500/- and a cost of Rs.500/-.

(3.) Aggrieved by the same the present appeal is filed. We are of the opinion that the lower Forum, Dindigul committed a grievous error in entertaining this complaint. The Accountant General is doing a constitutional function discharging the duty imposed on him under Chapter V of the Constitution of India. Under Article 148, he shall be responsible for compiling the accounts of the Union and of each State from the initial and subsidiary accounts rendered to the Audit and Accounts Offices under his control by Treasuries, offices or Departments responsible for keeping of such accounts. The Comptroller and Auditor General has to prepare and submit accounts to the President, Governors of States and Administrators of Union Territories which shall in turn be placed before the concened Legislatures. The Comptroller and Auditor-General has to give information and render assistance to the Union and States that may be found necessary by the concerned State Governments and Union from time-to-time. Under General Provision relating to audit, it is his duty to audit all expenditure from the Consolidated Fund of India and of each State and of each Union Territory, to audit all transactions of the Union and of the States relating to Contingency Funds and Public Accounts, and to audit all trading, manufacturing, profit and loss accounts and balance-sheets and other subsidiary accounts. He has been given power under Article 148 for the performance of the duty to inspect, audit and also to make such observations as he may consider necessary for the performance of his duty. According to Article 148, the Auditor General shall be appointed by the President by warrant. Thus we find the Auditor General has been called upon to exercise sovereign functions under the Constitution. In the course of such functions, he has to issue necessary authorization slips for the payment of the retirement benefits or other statutory payments which need sanction of the Auditor General. In such circumstances, it can never be stated that he is doing any service. The complainant being a retired Government servant cannot be termed as a consumer nor has hired the services of the Accountant General for any purpose much less for the payment of his retirement benefits. The Supreme Court of India has held a decision reported as early as in UNION BANK OF INDIA V/S SEPPO RALLY OY, 1999 3 CPJ 10that for the deficiency in service alleged, it is necessary to see whether there is any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the performance of the service which has been undertaken to be performed in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to an agreement. Here in this case, there is no deficiency in service by the Accountant-General or by his representatives to the complainant. The complainant cannot be held to have hired the services of the Accountant General nor can be deemed to have performed any service pursuant to any contract/agreement by the complainant. It is a statutory function. It is a constiutional obligation, that has been discharged by the A. G. for which a relief under Consumer Protection Act can never be appropriated nor warranted. Hence, the lower Forum erred in its approach as well as in its appreciation resulting in the direction it has issued ultimately for payment. Consequently, we have no hesitation to hold that the complaint cannot be maintained.