ASWATHAIAH E.STHURI SANJEEVAMMA vs D.SOMESHEKHARA

THIS appeal by the opposite party is directed against the order dated 23.6.1994, passed by the District Forum, Kolar in Complaint No. KDF/ COM/15/93-94, directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 3,485/- to the complainant towards interest on his pension amount of Rs. 66,381/-.

THE facts, briefly stated, are as follows : THE complainant was working as an attender in Physics Department of A.E.S. National College, Gowribidanur. He retired from service on 31.10.1992. THE concerned authorities failed to settle his pension even on repeated requests made by the complainant. So the complainant filed a complaint claiming compensation from the opposite party - the National College, Gowribidanur. Pending enquiry the opp. party settled the pension and granted the pension on 10.2.1994 to the complainant.

The District Forum having regard to this fact, though the complainant retired from service in the month of October, 1992 the pension was settled in the month of February, 1994, awarded interest on the said pension amount for this period of delay in a sum of Rs. 3,485/- to the complainant.

WE have called for the records and received. WE have also heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the respondent. The District Forum at Para 2 of its order observed thus: "During he pendency of this complaint the Opponent appeared to have made some correspondence with the Accountant General and other concerned authorities and they have settled the pension. The complainant has reported on 10.2.1994 that he received Rs. 66,381.00 in the month of February, 1994. In this proceedings he claims interest on Rs. 66,381.00 as well as cost of this proceedings."

THEREFORE this would go to show that in consultation with the Accountant General the pension of the complainant was settled. So having regard to these facts it appears that the complainant was a Government employee. So it cannot be said that the complainant hired the services of the opp. party for consideration. The Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, while considering such an aspect of the matter in Additional Director (T&A) and Others v. Jagdishwar Nath Jariath, reported in 1995 (2) CCON.C 76 (SS), held thus : "Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Section 2(1)(d) - Consumer - Government employee - whether the complainant who was a Government employee and under the service rules was required to deposit General Provident Fund and on his retirement was entitled thereto along with other service benefits, i.e., gratuity and pension etc. is a consumer as defined in the CPA. - held no. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(o)-Service -jurisdiction-the case of the Government Servant for non-payment of gratuity or General Provident Fund will not be covered under the definition of any services to be rendered - the agencies established under the Act have no jurisdiction to entertain such a claim."

The Consumer FORA established under the Act has no jurisdiction to undertake enquiry of such a claim. The complainant cannot be classified as a ''Consumer''. The District Forum did not consider this aspect of the matter. So it came to the erroneous conclusion in awarding interest to the complainant on pension amount settled in his favour. In the result, therefore, this appeal is allowed. The order passed by the District Forum, Kolar in Complaint No. KDF/COM/13/93-94 on 23.5.1994 is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

THE parties are directed to pay and bear their own costs in this proceeding. Appeal allowed.