SECRETARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT Vs. T M THANKAPPAN ACHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question raised in this original petition is whether the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has got jurisdiction to entertain a complaint in relation to non-payment of pensionary benefits of an employee who was working in an aided school. As per Ext. P-2, the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum allowed the complainant to realise 12% interest per annum for the principal amount of Rs. 2,08,493 from 1-1-2000 to 15-6-2000. Even though the Petitioners filed an appeal before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the said appeal was dismissed as there was delay in filing the appeal. These orders are under challenge in this original petition.

(2.) The first Respondent was working as a Peon in the second Respondent's school. He retired from service on 31-5-1999. The complaint was filed stating about the non-releasing of the pensionary benefits and describing it as a deficiency in service.

(3.) The main ground raised in this original petition is that a retired employee would not come under the definition of 'consumer', that the non-payment of retirement benefits will not come within the meaning of 'deficiency' as defined in Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act and that the same will not come within the definition of 'service' as defined in the Act also. Therefore, the basic question raised is as regards the jurisdiction of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, to entertain the complaint.