DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

Civil Station, Palakkad 678001, Kerala

Dated this the 11^th day of March, 2009

Present: Smt.Seena.H, President

Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member

C.C.No.8/2008

M.Ramakrishnan,

S/o.Krishnankutty Nair,

Muthattu House,

Vongasseri.P.O,

Ambalappara,

Ottapalam,

Palakkad. - Complainant

(Party in person)

Vs

1. The Sub Treasury Officer,

Ottapalam Treasury,

Ottapalam, Palakkad.

(By Govt. Pleader)

2. The Pension Clerk

Sub Treasury,

Ottapalam, Palakkad. - Opposite parties

(By Govt. Pleader)

O R D E R

By Smt.Seena.H, President

Complainant a pensioner has filed this complaint against the opposite parties alleging deficiency of service on their part. The complainant is aggrieved by the fact that the opposite parties are not disbursing his pension as per the revised scheme. He is a pensioner under the Tamil Nadu Govt. Later, pension payment was transferred to Sub Treasury Office, Ottapalam. Even though the complainant has submitted all the required documents, opposite party is not ready to disburse the amount which the complainant is entitled to. Hence the complaint.

2.Opposite party filed version with the following contentions. Complainant is drawing pension from the opposite party office. The pension is allotted as per Pro Ratta scheme dated 01/05/1975. The revisional order does not disclose how much amount he had drawn. The order of Finance Pay Commission Department does not disclose the amount which

comes under Pro Ratta. To get clarification opposite parties sent several communications to the Accountant General Office, Tamil Nadu as well as Kerala. Opposite party is ready to disburse the pension on receipt of clarification from the concerned department. According to opposite party complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3. Complainant and opposite party filed proof affidavit. Exts. A1 to A5 marked on the side of complainant.

4. Now the issues for consideration are;

1. Whether the subject matter of the complaint comes under the purview of Consumer Protection Act?

2. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties? And

3. If so, what is the reliefs and cost?

5. Point No.1: The stand of the complainant is that the opposite parties have not disbursed his pension, as per the revised scale even after receipt of the required documents. The documents are marked as Ext. A1 and A2. A consumer as defined under section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, is a person who hires or avails of service for consideration. Complainant has not hired or availed the services of the opposite parties for consideration. So having regard to these facts, complainant is not a consumer and the opposite parties cannot be said to be a service provider. Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain such a complaint.

6. As the forum lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Complaint stands dismissed. No order as to cost.

7. Pronounced in the open court on this 11^th day of March, 2009

Sd/-

Seena.H

President

Sd/-

Bhanumathi.A.K

Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext. A1 – Letter of Transfer of Pension payment from Accountant General, Tamil Nadu,

Chennai to The Accountant General (A &E), Kerala

Ext. A2 – Letter No.79156, Under Secretary t Government, sent to M. Ramakrishnan

Ext. A3 – Letter from Principal Secretary to M. Ramakrishnan

Ext. A4 – Letter from Accountant General (Accounts & Entitlements) Tamilnadu,

Chennai sent to M. Ramakrishnan.

Ext. A5 - Letter from Indian Audit and Accounts Department, Office of the

Accountant General, (A & E), sent to The Principal Secretary (Fin), Tvm.

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite Party

Nil