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 2nd day of November 2009 CC.220/2006 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) 3.Asst. Educational Officer, Taliparamba North,Chiravakku Taliparamba O R D E R Smt.K.P.Preethakuamari, Member This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.67, 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 is that he had been worked as a primary school teacher from 1.1.1976 and has been promoted as a Head teacher from 22.5.2002. She had been worked in Govt. L.P.School, Chovva from 22.8.03 to 31.5.04 and Kakkara Gandhi Smaraka Govt.U.P School from 1.6.04 to 31.3.06 and retired from service on 31.3.06. But due to non-receipt of non-liability certificate from Thimiri Govt. U.P.School which is within the jurisdiction of Taliapramba North sub Dist., he has not received the retirement benefit within time. The audit during the period of the complainant was done by 2nd opposite party alone on 17.10.05. Usually the audit will be conducted by office superintendent and U.D clerk. Instead of this the 2nd opposite party alone conducted audit with an intention to harass the complainant. At that time the complainant had been working as Head Master in Kakkara Govt. U.P.School. As per the above audit report, there is no financial liability on the part of the complainant. Even though the Asst. Education Officer, Payyannur has requested NLC of the complainant along with 6 others from Taliparamba North Asst. Education Officer, all the others had received the NLC except the complainant. Even though the complainant requested for several times, he has not received the NLC. But in the above said audit report the auditor has shown some minor objection without mentioning the period of audit and the name of Head masters. So the complainant had filed a writ petition before the Hon, ble High Court of Keala and after this the opposite parties had issued the NLC to the complainant. This caused the complainant so much of mental agony, financial loss etc. The non-receipt of retirement benefit is due to non-issuance of NLC from opposite parties which was due to the deficient service of the opposite parties. The reason mentioned for non-receipt of NLC is with respect to some construction work done in the above said school, i.e. Construction of compound wall and for which fund was allotted by Dist. Pacnhayath, Kannur. The convener of that work was one Mr.T.Nasarudeen, The PTA president and all the bills, vouchers and cash books were audited by the District Panachayth. So the objection put forwarded by opposite parties for not giving the NLC is unsustainable with an intention to harass the complainant and because of this the complainant had suffered Because of so much of mental and physical agony and financial loss. Hence this complaint. On receiving the notice from the Forum opposite parties 2 and 3 were appeared and filed version. Later on opposite party 1 and 3 remains absent and hence they were called absent and set exparte. 2nd opposite party field version contending that the complainant is not a consumer and ft the complainant has any grievance there is sufficient authorities with the education department to redress such grievances. The 2nd opposite party was joined in the service of Taliapramba North Sub district office on 16.6.04 by transfer from the South sub district office, Taliparamba. In this office he had been worked in the ‘A’ section which is dealt with the office establishment and pension. In the North sub district office, altogether 8 persons have been worked in the clerical post. Out of this, 6 of this will codncut the school inspection and audit as per the order of AEO. The 2nd opposite party admits that the complainant was the H.M up to 2003 and after this his wife Nabeesa beevi had been worked as HM of the Thimiri School. The 2nd opposite party had audited the accounts on 18.10.05 and he audited the accounts from 17.8.01 to 17.10.05. But at the time of audit it was found that the amount sanctioned from M.P and MLA fund was not entered in the cash book. The audit report was submitted without any delay. But on that day special fees cashbooks and vouchers were not audited. Since it was not produced for inspection. So there was an endorsement to the effect that the general cash book and special fees cash books have to be inspected, so without producing these books, on 23.1.06, they produced only a rectification report. Even if it is so, considering the rectification report, removed the objection on 14.2.06. At that time, the complainant’s wife is the Head Master of this school and she could have handed over the NLC to the office. The delay of submitting NLC was on the part of the wife of the complainant because she has not submitted the NLC to AEO office. More over the 2nd opposite party is dealing with NLC and other pension details of those persons who are retiring from service within the jurisdiction of Taliparamba Educational Sub District. The person retires from service from other sub district was dealt with ‘B” section. So the subject matter of the case is outside the jurisdiction of the 2nd opposite party. The audit report will directly handed over to the audit section and the 2nd opposite party has no opportunity to deal with the audit report and hence the averment that the 2nd opposite party has delayed the NLC of the complaint is incorrect. Above all the NLC of the complainant was submitted to AEO office on 27.9.06 by the Head Master of Thimiri School and the same was handed over to the office of the AEO, Payyannur sub district on the same day through a special messenger. So there was no delay from the AEO office, Taliapramba North and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 3rd opposite party also field version, stating that opposite parties 1 and 2 were retired from service on 31.5.07 and 31.10.06 respectively. They admits that the complainant had been worked from 22.5.02 to 20.8.03 to Thimiri and transferred to Chovva and then transferred and posted to GGS UP school, Kakkara from 1.6.04 to 31.3.06 and was retired on 31.3.06. The NLC from the school was received on 26.9.06 and on the same day the same was issued and served to AEO. Payyannur. So there was no delay on the part of AEO or section clerk and also the delay was not deliberately but due to administrative reason which was beyond their control. So 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 delay in submitting NLC by the opposite parties? 3. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite parties? 4. Whether the complaint is entitled to any relief? 5. Relief and cost. The evidence in the above case consists of the oral testimony of PW1, and Exts.A1 to A9 and B1 & B2. 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 which 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 of AEOs office. . 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. More over 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.Copy of the letter dt.27.9.06sent by AEO payyannur to STO. Payyannur A2.Copy of gratuity report dt.19.3.06 A3.copy of gratuity payment order dt.12.6.06 A4.copy of pay order cheque A5.Copy of annual inspection report A6.Copy of judgment in WPC.25829/2006 of High court of Kerala at Ernakulam A7.Copy of letter No.5074/05 dt.2/06 A8. Copy of letter No.5074/05 dt.6/06 sent by AEO Taliparamba A9.Copy of the letter No.5074/05 dt.9/06 sent by AEO Exhibits for the opposite party B1. NLC dt.26.9.06 B2.Copy of the letter dt.26.9.06 sent by HM,Thimiri to AEO Witness examined for the complainant PW1.Complainant Witness examined for opposite parties: Nil /forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur
......................GOPALAN.K
......................JESSY.M.D
......................PREETHAKUMARI.K.P | | 
