IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR Present: Sri.K.Gopalan: President Smt.K.P.Prethakumari: Member Smt.M.D.Jessy: Member Dated this, the 3rd day of November 2009 CC.221/2006 N.M.Nabeesa Beevi, W/o.C.M.Ismayil, Jas Manzil, P.O.Padiyottuchal, Complainant Via.Payyannur 1. M.V.Bhaskaran, Asst. Educational Officer, Taliparamba North Chiravakku, Taliparamba 2.K.P.Kunhiraman Nambiar, Clerk, O/o.Asst.Educational Officer, opposite parties Taliparamba North. (Rep. by Adv.T.V.Ajayakumar) O R D E R Smt.K.P.Preethakuamrai, Member This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.62, 000/- as compensation and for an order not to disburse the pensionery benefits of 2nd opposite party till the disposal of the complaint. The complainant’s case s that she had been worked as a primary school teacher from 1.1.1973 and has been promoted as a Head teacher from 17.6.2003. She had worked in Govt. L.P.School, Chovva and Thimiri as the HM and retired from service as on 30.4.2006 from Thimiri govt. U.P.School But due to non-receipt of non-liability certificate from Thimiri Govt. U.P.School and from Taliapramba North AEO, she has not received the retirement benefit within time. The non-receipt of non-liability certificate is due to the unnecessary objection put forwarded by 2nd opposite party who had conducted the audit. Person who had retired after the retirement of the complaint has received the NLC in time. But as per the audit report, no financial liability on the part of the com plaint. She has not received the emoluments as per the pay revision, even though she had applied for the same during 2006 April. The reason stated for non-issuance of NLC is with respect to some construction work done in the above said school i.e. the construction of ground, stage etc. by using MLA and MP fund. The convener of that work was the PTA President and that work is not completed. But even though the bills and vouchers were kept in the school it was not examined or even not asked by the 2nd opposite party at the time of audit. Moreover the 2nd opposite party is trying to delay the issuance of NLC due to personal grudge. Because of these the complainant had suffered so much of mental, physical agony and financial loss. Hence this complaint. On receiving the notice from the Forum 2nd opposite party appeared and filed version. Even though notice was acknowledged by 1st opposite party he remains absent and hence he was set exparte. 2nd opposite party field version contending that the complainant is not a consumer and if the complainant has any grievance there is sufficient authorities with the education department to redress such grievances. The 2nd opposite party had been worked as “A section clerk. The 2nd opposite party also accompanied with the auditing officer on 17.10.05 to audit the accounts of Thimiri Govt.U.P.School. But at the time of audit it was found that the amount sanctioned from M.P fund and MLA fund has not entered in the cash book and hence they are not able to audit the same and the same was indicted in the audit report also. Later on she had submitted the rectification report. The rectification report from the SSA Project officer was received only on 28.8.06, and the rectification report from the Thimiri School was received only on 16.9.06. The NLC was ordered on 26.9.06 and the same was issued to the Treasury Payyannur on the next day itself. So there was no delay from the AEO’s office for issuing the NLC to the complainant. More over the pensional revision application form was submitted only on 11.9.06 and the details shown in the DCRG were also not correct. But on 15.9.06 itself the 2nd opposite party had send the application form and hence there is no delay or deficiency of service on the part of the 2nd opposite party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Upon the above pleadings the following issues have been raised for consideration. 1. Whether the complainant is a consumer? 2. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite party? 3. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? 4. Relief and cost. The evidence in the above case consists of the oral testimony of PW1, DW1 and Exts.A1 to A4 and B1 to B 11. IssueNo.1 The opposite parties contended that the complainant is not a consumer as per the consumer protection act. The complaint has been filed for compensation for not issuing non-liability certificate from Taliapramba AEO’s office and hence there caused delay in obtaining pensionary benefits of the complainant. The complainant is a retired teacher and the opposite parties are Asst. Education Officer and the clerk. Both the complainant and opposite parties were government servants. More over as per the Consumer protection Act under section 2(d)(ii) Consumer means any person who avails any service for consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised and includes beneficiary of such services. Considering this case the all opposite parties are government servants and are doing their service free of cost to the complainant. Moreover in Secretary, education Department vs. Thankappan Achary which was reported in 2007 (3) KLT 1021, the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala held that consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint in relation to non-payment of pensioanry benefits of an employee who was working in an aided school. As far as the employees of aided schools are concerned, they are being paid salary and other benefits and retirement benefits by the government based on the provisions of Kerala Education Act and the allied Rules. Therefore at any rate it cannot be contended that a person who is under the employment in aided school will be a consumer for the purpose of Consumer protection Act. Any service rendered as free of charge or under a contract of personal service is excluded from the definition of service. It cannot be disputed that a person in employment is getting the pay and other benefits on the basis of the relationship known as master and servant relationship or employer and employee relationship. So such person cannot be considered as a consumer. The same view was expressed in another case Divisional Forest Officer vs. Aravindaksha Menon which was reported in 2002(2) KLT 48 it is held that government servant cannot be treated as a consumer and hence the forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the application. Hence we are of the opinion that the complainant is not a consumer and hence the forum has no jurisdiction to decide the case. So we are not going deeply into the merits for answering other issues and hence the complaint stands dismissed. In the result, the complaint dismissed. No cost. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the complainant A1.Letter dt.25.9.06 issued by HM, GUPS, Thimiri A2.Copy of audit report of GUPS, Thimiri A3.Copy of the letter dt.25.8.06 sent to DD, Kannur A4.Copy of the letter sent by DDE, Kannur dt.9.4.07 Exhibits for the opposite parties B1.Copy of the letter dt.28.8.06 sent by complainant B2.Copy of NLC dt.28.8.06 B3.Copy of the letter dt.28.8.06sent by Dist. Project officer, to AEO B4.Copy of the letter dt.19.6.06 sent by HM, GUPS, Thimiri. B5.Copy of the letter sent by OP1 to STO, Payyannur B6.Copy of the letter dt.28.8.06 sent byOP1 to HM, GUPS, and Thimiri. B7.Copy of the U.O.Note dt.28.8.06EO, Taliparamba. B8.Copy of the letter sent to STO,Payyannur B9.Copy of NLC dt.16.9.06 B10.Letter dt.20.10.06 sent by HM,GUPS,Thimiri to 2nd OP. B11.Copy of the letter sent by HM, GUPS,Thimiri to OP Witness examined for the complainant PW1.Complainant Witness examined for the opposite parties DW1.K.S.Murali /forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur
......................GOPALAN.K
......................JESSY.M.D
......................PREETHAKUMARI.K.P | | 
