DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER Vs. A ARAVINDAKSHA MENON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Divisional Forest Officer, Parambikulam is the petitioner in the above Original Petition, who challenges the order of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palakkad. A copy of the order is produced as Ext. P3. A retired government servant had filed an application before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palakkad requiring the Forum to issue appropriate direction to the Divisional Forest Officer to pay him the benefit of interest arising out of delayed payment of commutation benefits. Before the Forum, the Divisional Forest Officer had projected the reason for the delay as one emanating from the part of the employee himself as disciplinary proceedings were pending against him. However, overlooking these objections a direction had been issued for payment of interest within a deadline. The operation of the order has been stayed by this Court.

(2.) The learned Government Pleader submits that the Forum had acted in a manner wholly without jurisdiction. The consumer is defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in the following terms:

(3.) Sri. S.P. Aravindakshan Pillai, counsel appearing for the first respondent, submits that an objection has not been taken before the Forum as regards the maintainability of the dispute. But that cannot salvage the situation. The office of the Forum had the duty to see the nature of the claim, and in case of doubt present it before the members before formally entertaining it. Though the petitioner might have had grievance, the claim as presented before the wrong authority was frivolous.