KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO:134/2004
JUDGMENT DATED: 26.11.2007
PRESENT
SHRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
General Manager,
SNDP Yogam Schools, : APPELLANT
P.B.No.512, Kollam.
(By Adv. N.N.Sugunapalan)
Vs
1. S.N.Vijayan,
HSA, Malayalam,
SNDP, High School, Muttathukonam,
Pathanamthitta.
2. Secretary, : RESPONDENTS
General Education Department,
Trivandrum.
3. Director of Public Intructions,
Trivandrum.
4. Headmistress,
SNDP High School,
Muttathukonam, Elavumthitta,
Pathanamthitta.
JUDGMENT
SHRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
The above appeal is preferred from the order dated:8..1..2004 passed by the CDRF, Pathanamthitta in OP:33/00. The complaint in OP:33/00 was preferred by the 1st respondent herein as complainant against the respondents 2 to 4 and the appellant as opposite parties. The appellant herein was the 3rd opposite party in the aforesaid OP:33/00. The aforesaid complaint was filed to get the benefits under the Government order issued by the Secretary to Government, General Education (aided schools) vide order GD(At)No.4878/92/G.Den. dated:8..12..1992 regarding regularization of the appointment of the complainant as HAS (Malayalam) in the appellant’s/
3rd opposite party, school and also for getting salary for the period from 15..7..1979 to 14..7..1983. The lower forum allowed the aforesaid complaint and thereby directed the opposite parties 2 and 3 are directed to pay Rs.5000/- each as compensation to the complainant and also to pay Rs.1,500/- each as cost. It has also given a direction for approval of the appointment of the complainant as HAS, Malayalam. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the present appeal is filed by the 3rd opposite party in OP:33/00.
When this appeal was taken up for hearing there was no representation for the respondents 1 to 4. We head the counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant argued the case on the basis of the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum. It is submitted that the complainant/1st respondent is not a consumer coming under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. It is further submitted that the complainant has not sought for any relief against the appellant/3rd opposite party; but the lower forum directed the appellant/3rd opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation with cost of Rs.1500/-. Hence the appellant requested for dismissal of the order passed by the lower forum.
The points that arise for consideration are:-
1. Whether the complainant/1st respondent can be treated as a consumer coming within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act 1986?
2. Is there any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the CDRF, Pathanamthitta in OP:33/00.
POINT NOS:1 AND 2
We refer the parties to this appeal according to their status before the lower forum in OP:33/00.
The complaint is preferred for getting the relief under the Government Order passed by the Secretary to Government, General Education (Aided School) dated:8..12..1992. There is no dispute that the complainant was appointed as HAS (Malayalam) in the 3rd opposite party school. By going through the definition given for consumer it can be seen that the complainant herein has not hired or availed any service from the opposite parties. The 1st opposite party is the Secretary, General Education Department, Trivandrum. The 2nd opposite party is the Director of Public Instructions, Trivandrum, 3rd opposite party is the General Manager, SNDP Yogam Schools, Kollam and the additional 4th opposite party is the Headmaster of that school. There is nothing on record to show that the complainant as a teacher availed any sort of service from the opposite parties on payment of consideration. The complainant has also no case that he availed or hired any service of opposite parties on consideration. If that be so, the complainant in OP.33/2000 viz, the 1st respondent herein cannot be treated as a consumer coming within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act. Unfortunately the lower forum failed to consider this material aspect of the case. Thus, it can very safely be concluded that the complainant/1st respondent would not come within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
Another aspect to be noted at this juncture is the relief sought for in the complaint in OP:33/2000. The only grievance of the complainant is that the opposite parties failed to implement the Government order passed by the Secretary to Government, General Education Department dated:8..12..1992. Opposite parties 1 and 2 being the Government authority are governed by the provisions contained in the relevant statute. The mere fact that the opposite parties 1 and 2 as Government officials failed to implement the Government order cannot be treated as deficiency of service coming under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. Moreover the complainant has not hired or availed the service of the Government officials. So it is crystal clear that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under Sec.2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
The complainant has not sought for any relief against the appellant/3rd opposite party. But the lower forum directed the 3rd opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation. Thus, the lower forum has exceeded its jurisdiction by granting such a relief without asking him. Moreover, the complainant has no case that 3rd opposite party(appellant) failed to render any service or that there occurred deficiency of service on the part of the appellant/3rd opposite party. Thus, in all respects the impugned order passed by CDRF, Pathanamthitta in OP:33/00 is liable to be quashed. Hence we do so.
