Perused the complaint and documents filed there to and heard the counsel for complainant on admission of complaint.<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant Malan Bee against (1) Government Secretary Department of Primary Education Bangalore, (2) Senior Accounts Officer A.G. Office Bangalore, (3) Commissioner of Education, Gulbarga and (4) Block Development Officer Public Education Department Raichur, herein after referred as Respondents 1 to 4 respectively. The brief facts of the complaint are that:<br /> <br /> Her late husband Md. Maheboob was a retired Government Servant and was getting pension. Her husband was absconding in the year 1996 and was not seen for a long time. To get family pension she filed a suit in OS.No. 113/03 as per the advise of the concerned officers and got a decree on 25-03-04 declaring that her late husband Md. Mahaboob has died in the eye of law. Thereafter she approached Respondent NO-4 for sanction of family pension. But Respondent No-4 instructed her that all the papers are with Respondent NO-2 and accordingly she approached Respondent No-2 at Bangalore for sanction of family pension. To her utter surprise Respondent NO-2 told that Government has to sanction the family pension and she was directed to approach Government-Respondent No-2. She once again applied to Respondent NO-1 for sanction of family pension. The Respondent No-1 sent the proposal to Respondent No-3 who in-turn sent her application to Respondent NO-4 for recommendations for grant of family pension. The complainant then approached Respondent NO-4 and gave all papers that are available with her along with indemnity bond as required. Respondent No-4 sent all the records and papers to Respondent No-3 who in-turn sent the proposal to the Government. The Government once again sent back the proposal with some observations that the recommendation for family pension should come through proper channel and the stamp paper that being sent does not give particulars of the amount. The complainant surprised to note that how it could be possible to her to assess the family pension and how she could know the amount of family pension that will be sanctioned by the Government since the family pension will be assessed by the Government on the last draw of pension by her late deceased husband-employee. The papers were sent back to Block Development Officer Raichur were sent to the Deputy Director of Public Instructions Raichur. The papers received by the Respondent No-3 were sent to Government-Respondent No-1 for according sanction of family pension through proper channel and this complainant did not hear anything from the Government. After long waiting, when she contacted Respondent No-1 on telephone, she was asked to come to Bangalore and on her inability to go to Bangalore, the Respondent No-1 sent back the file to the Respondent No-3 with some observations. The observations of Respondent No-1 is totally uncalled-for because this complainant had obtained decree from Civil Court declaring that her husband is dead under the eye of law. Under the circumstances the clarification asked by the Respondent NO-1 is totally bad in the eye of law. The Respondent No-1 has intentionally sent back the file to harass this complainant. The order of the Government to sanction for family pension to the person who is absconding since two years are required to give police complaint and other requirements as desired by the Respondent No-1 but not in the present case where complainant had obtained decree from civil court about the declaration of death of her husband. Since 1996 the complainant is struggling to get family pension but all her efforts are lacking behind due to financial condition and thus she is deceived by the Government in getting family pension without any lawful cause and she has lost confidence in the Government and services by the Government machinery is totally failed. Hence for all these reasons she has sought for direction to the Respondents to pay family pension from the date of declaration of death of her husband from the Civil Court with interest at 18% p.a. over the family pension amount due and to award a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- towards mental agony suffered by her.<br /> <br /> 2. From a close perusal of the complaint it clearly shows that the complainant herein seeks a direction to the Respondents to sanction and to pay her family pension by narrating that her late husband who is a Retired Government Servant is not heard from many years and she had obtained a Civil Court Decree declaring that her husband has died in the eye of law. Now a question arises as to whether the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of C.P. Act. Section 2(1) (d) of C.P. Act defines consumer as a person who : <br /> (i) buys any goods 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 user of goods etc., etc., <br /> <br /> (ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payments and includes any beneficiary of such services other than a person who (hire of avails of) the services for consideration paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised etc., etc.,<br /> <br /> 3. From the plain reading of complaint, we do not find any hired service of the Respondents by the complainant for a consideration which has been paid or promised etc., as envisaged U/s 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. So the complainant cannot be said to be a Consumer within the meaning of the C.P. Act. This our view is supported by the decision of Hon’ble National Commission reported in 1986-2004 CONSUMER 8039 (NS Krishna Kumar Gupta V/s. General Manager, Bank of India and others Head Note which reads as under:-<br /> “Consumer Protection Act, 1986__ section 2(1(d)__ consumer__Pension__ allegation of complainant regarding refusal to grant of pension__ prays for Rs. 1 crore as compensation__ held complainant has not hired the services of the OP__ not a consumer__further, to look for a compensation running into crores of rupees on a small pension amount itself negatives the bonafides of the complainant__ complaint dismissed.”<br /> <br /> The referred decision is applicable on all fours to the case at hand. Hence the complainant herein cannot be said to be a Consumer under C.P. Act so as to entertain her complaint in this Forum. Therefore complaint deserves to be rejected U/s. 12(3) of the C.P. Act. Hence order.<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> The complaint of the complainant is rejected U/s. 12(3) of the Act as the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of section 2(1)(d) of the Act.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 18-09-06.)<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> Sri. N.H. Savalagi,<br /> President,<br /> District Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> Sri. Pampannagouda, <br /> Member<br /> District Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/- <br /> Smt.Kavita Patil, <br /> Member. <br /> District Forum-Raichur<br />