ACCOUNTANT GENERAL Vs. PANDURANG MARUTI INGAWALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THERE is delay of 10 days in filing the appeal. Delay is of few days. Delay is not intentional or deliberate. We are, therefore, inclined to condone the delay. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the District Consumer Forum, Satara in Consumer Complaint No. 299/2000, whereby the Forum below was pleased to direct Accountant General of Maharashtra to pay interest @ 18% p. a. on complainant's G. P. F. amount of Rs. 1,97,501 for the period from 1. 2. 1997 to 29. 4. 1998 within a period of 30 days from the date of order and also imposed compensation of Rs. 1,000 and cost of Rs. 500.

(2.) WE perused the impugned order. We are finding that respondent Mr. Pandurang Maruti Ingawale was in judicial service of Government of Maharashtra as Bailiff. He retired as Head Bailiff from Phaltan on 31. 1. 1997. He was member of Government Provident Fund. His provident fund was deducted from his salary every month as per rules of the Government. It was pleaded by the complainant that he had withdrawn P. F. amount during his service tenure and same has been duly refunded by him. However on 31. 1. 1997 when complainant got retired an amount of Rs. 1,97,501 was in balance in his G. P. F. account bearing No. AJMH/16877. He pleaded further that he had applied for payment of Provident Fund dues through Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dahiwadi who was having charge of Phaltan Court. However, said form was submitted to Provident Fund Department after 11 months. After due scrutiny of the said form, the complainant was paid an amount of Rs. 2,05,005 on 29. 4. 1998. No interest for delay of 11 months was paid to the complainant while paying him interest on the said amount. According to complainant he ought to have received Rs. 29,622 @ 12% p. a. on Rs. 19,750 for the period from 1. 2. 1997 to 29. 4. 1998. However, he received amount of Rs. 7,504 from O. P. No. 1. He, therefore, filed consumer complaint for alleging deficiency in service on the part of Accountant General office of Maharashtra.

(3.) O. P. No. 1 Accountant General of Maharashtra did not put in appearance and did not file written statement despite service of notice. Hence it was proceeded ex parte.