PENSION DEPARTMENT, RAJASTHAN vs MOOLCHAND SHAHU RETIRED HOTEL SUPERINTENDENT

THE opposite party before the District Forum has lodged this appeal against the order dated 13.11.1990 passed by the District Forum, Ajmer in Complaint Case No. 443/90 under S. 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the Act" herein). In view of the point involved in this appeal, we shall only notice the facts necessary for deciding it. THE complainant-respondent is a retired government servant. THE dispute is with regard to the payment of pension. THE District Forum by the impugned order held that the opposite party-appellant shall pay interest to the complainant-respondent on the amount of Rs. 32,510/- @ 2% p.a. within two months from the date of the order failing which it will be held guilty for the disobediance. An objection was raised on behalf of the opposite party-appellant before the District Forum that the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of S. 2(1)(d) of the Act as he cannot be said to have hired the services for consideration of the opposite party-appellant. THE objection was taken in the version of the case but the District Forum did not examine this point which goes to the root of the case. A reply to the appeal filed on behalf of the opposite party-appellant has been submitted reiterating the point that the District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain, hear and decide the complaint under S. 12 of the Act. A reply was filed on behalf of the complainantrespondent on 19.1.1991 stating that a retired government servant is a consumer. In this way he refuted that he is not a consumer.

WE waited for the complainant-respondent but he has not appeared. On being asked learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appeal may be heard and decided by a Bench consisting of two members and they have no objection if it is heard by two members. He referred to S. 15 of the Act and R. 8(9) of the Consumer Protection (Raj.) Rules, 1987. WE, therefore, heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. The principal question that calls for our determination in the appeal is whether relief which was granted by the District Forum in the complaint filed by the complainant on the ground that he is a consumer could be granted in law. "Complainant", "complaint", "consumer", "consumer dispute" and "service" have been defined in S. 2(1) (b), (c), (d), (e) and (o) of the Act. It will be relevant to notice the definition of the complaint. The material part of which is as under : "Complaint" means any allegation in writing made by a complainant that - (iii) the services mentioned in the complaint suffer from deficiency in any respect." According to S. 2(1)(d) "complainant", inter alia, means a consumer. A complaint amongst others means any allegation made in writing made by the complainant that the services mentioned in the complaint suffer from deficiency in any respect. It will be useful to read relevant part of S. 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. It is as under : ''"(d) "consumer" means any person who :- (i) (ii) hires any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person." After considering the definition of the "complainant", "complaint" and "consumer", we have to see whether the complainant is a consumer to whom the opposite party was required to render any service. A persual of S. 2(1)(d)(ii) shows that if any person has hired any services for consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment is a consumer and it includes other persons mentioned in it. "Hire" has not been defined in the Act. "Hire" has been defined in the Concise Oxford Dictionary as "employ person for wages or fee". In Colling English Dictionary, "hire" has been defined as "to acquire the temporary use of thing or services of a person in exchange for payment" or "to provide something or the service of oneself or others for an agreed payment usually for an agreed period."

Consideration has also not been defined in the Act but it means : "Consideration" means payment for a service, recompense fee.

The complainant-respondent cannot be said to have hired any services of the opposite party-respondent namely Pension Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur for "consideration". Nothing has been alleged in the complaint before the District Forum showing that he has hired the services of opposite party for consideration. If that is so the allegation with regard to the deficiency in service of the opposite party-appellant does not arise to be adjudicated upon by the District Forum under S. 12 of the Act. The grievances made by the complainant against the opposite party-appellant cannot be determined by the redressal forums constituted under the Act. We are, therefore, of opinion that the complainant is not a consumer and was, therefore, not entitled to maintain the complaint before the District Forum. As the complaint did not lay before the District Forum, it had no jurisdiction to decide it. The order appealed against is, therefore, without jurisdiction and it has to be set aside.

IN view of the conclusion to which we have arrived at, it is not necessary to examine the order appealed against on merit. For the aforesaid reasons the appeal is allowed and the order dated 13.11.1989 passed by the District Forum, Ajmer in Complaint Case No. 443/90 is set aside. The complaint shall stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs of this appeal. Complaint dismissed.