ORDER ON THE MAINTAINBILITY OF THIS COMPLAINT.<br /> <br /> This complaint is filed by the complainant Smt. Mahadevamma against Respondents 1 to 4 Government Officers U/sec. 12 of C.P. Act fr to grant interest of Rs. 5,911/- on the family pension amount granted to her for delay caused in processing her application by Respondents 1 & 2 and for delay in making payment of amount by Respondents 3 & 4.<br /> <br /> 2. The brief facts her complaint are that she submitted an application for t sanction family pension on 13-04-07 before Respondent No-2 due t death of her husband who was working under Respondent No-2 Officer of the Government thereafter Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 made delay in processing of her application from 01-08-07 to 20-04-08 and thereafter Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 made delay in making payment of pension amount from 01-08-08 to 15-10-08. Hence she prayed for to award interest for such delay to the extent of Rs. 5,911/- on the pension amount.<br /> <br /> 3. Heard on the complaint regarding maintainability, perused the recrds.<br /> <br /> 4. In-view of the facts and circumstances of stated above. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that:<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the claim of complainant is maintainable U/sec 12 of C.P. act before this Consumer Forum.?<br /> <br /> 2. What order?<br /> <br /> 5. Our finding on the above points are as under:-<br /> <br /> (1) In the Negative.<br /> <br /> (2) In view of the finding on Point No-1, we proceed to pass the final order for the following:<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> POINT NO.1:-<br /> <br /> 6. This complaint filed by the complainant by contending that her husband died on 13-04-07 who was working under opposite Government Officer she filed her application to sanction family pension on 14-04-07 there was delay in processing her application from 01-08-07 to 20-04-08 by Respondent No- 1 & 2 and thereafter Respondent No-3 & 4 made delay in making payment of the pension amount from 01-08-08 to 15-10-08.<br /> <br /> 7. The learned advocate for complainant submitted his arguments by relying on the decided case reported in (4) (2004) CPJ 627 and submitted that the complaint is maintainable against all the Respondents before the Consumer Forum. Further he contended that section 3 of C.P. Act also come to the aid for the complainant to file such complaint before the Consumer Forum.<br /> <br /> 8. In the light of the submissions made by the learned advocate for complainant we have gone through the ruling referred by him. In the said case Retired Employees of Co-operative Societies were the members of the pension scheme implemented under the provisions of Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, each member has contributed 33% of their salary in the pension fund. In the said circumstances their lordships of the Kerala High Court held as complaint by such member before the Forum is maintainable.<br /> 9. The facts of the present complaint are quite different to the facts of the said case, in the instant case there was no contribution by the complainant or her husband towards any pension fund controlled by Government Officers like Respondents 1 to 4. The complaint not reveals any kind of service required to be rendered by these Opposite towards complainant or her deceased husband on consideration as such the present complainant is not consumer as defined U/sec. 2(1)(d) of the C.P.Act. Similarly there is no service required to be performed by these Respondents Government Officers on consideration under the meaning and definition of service as defined U/sec. 2(1)(c)(4) of C.P. Act and the present complainant cannot hesitate this subject matter as a consumer disputes within the meaning and definition U/Sec 2(1)(e) of the said Act. Further we are of the view that Section 3 of the C.P. Act is not coming to the aid of the complainant as the complainant or her deceased husband is not a consumer as defined under the said Act. Accordingly complaint is not maintainable before this Forum to adjudicate the subject matter of it . Hence we answered Point No-1 in Negative.<br /> <br /> POINT NO.2:-<br /> <br /> 10. In-view of our finding on Point No-1, we proceed to pass the following order:<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> The complaint filed by the complainant U/sec. 12 of C.P. Act is dismissed as not maintainable before Consumer Forum.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 31-07-09)<br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> Sri. Pampapathi,<br /> President,<br /> District Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> Sri. Gururaj, Member,<br /> District Forum-Raichur.<br />