Point of Law: Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act “Consumer” means any person who 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 such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose.

ORDER :

C. Praveen Kumar, J.

1. Assailing the Order, dated 31.03.2011, passed in C.C. No. 53 of 2010, on the file the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, Chittoor, the present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. The circumstances which lead to filing of the present writ petition are as under:

(i) The Complainant is the father of one late L. Thulasi Lakshmi [‘deceased’], who while working as Secondary Grade Teacher in Elementary School at Motlapalle Village, V.Kota Mandal, Chittoor District, died on 26.04.2006. As the Complainant was nominated as a ‘nominee’ by the deceased in her Service Register, to receive all the benefits on her death from the Government, approached the Mandal Educational Officer, V.Kota Mandal (1st Opposite Party) for payment of all benefits. It is said that though the Mandal Educational Officer has disbursed the benefits like A.P.G.L.I.C, G.P.F, GIS, Death Fund etc., in the year 2008 itself, but for reasons best known, he has not paid an amount of Rs. 30,000/- towards General Insurance Scheme and a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards death fund.

3. It is said that Mandal Educational Officer, V.Kota Mandal passed an Order and accorded sanction for payment of Rs.30,412/- to the Complainant, which was not only affirmed by the District Audit Officer of State Audit Office, Chittoor, but also authorized the authorities concerned to pay a sum of Rs.30,421/- towards refund of General Insurance Scheme amount. The material on record would show that the Sub Treasury Officer, Palamaner, has also passed paper token dated 03.08.2006 for taking Demand Draft for Rs. 30,000/- towards General Insurance Scheme and Rs. 2,000/- towards death fund in the name of T.Jayanthaiah, the then M.E.O, V.Kota Mandal payable to the complainant. But, it is said that the Demand Draft though executed was not paid to the complainant. The deficiency in service of Mandal Educational Officer along with District Educational Officer made the complainant to file the above complaint.

4. Written statement came to be filed by the Mandal Educational Officer disputing the averments made in the complaint. It is said that the Son-in-law of the Complainant, who is husband of the deceased has approached the authorities in respect of the claim made by the father of the deceased, on the ground that he being the husband, is entitled for the said claim. The District Educational Officer appears to have issued the proceedings dated 19.10.2010 to the Mandal Educational Officer, requesting him to draw the benefits of the deceased and disburse the same to the legal heirs of the deceased as per the rules in force.

5. No written statement is filed by the 3rd Opposite Party, disputing the claim made.

6. In support of his case, the complainant examined himself as PW-1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A5. No oral evidence or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the Opposite Parties and in fact they did not file even evidence in the form of affidavit as well as documents.

7. Considering the material available on record, the District Forum directed the Mandal Educational Officer to pay a sum of Rs. 32,412/- with interest at 12% p.a from the date of death of the deceased i.e. 26.04.2006, till date of payment with costs of Rs. 3,000/-. The complaint against Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 was dismissed. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition came to be filed by the 1st Opposite Party/Petitioner.

8. Mr. Ch. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner mainly submits that this being a service matter namely payment of service benefits to the nominee of the deceased -employee, the same does not attract the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In other words, his argument appears to be that no complaint could have been entertained by the District Consumer Forum, seeking compensation in a matter of this nature. He further submits that the amount claimed by the complainant was paid in the year 2011 itself by way of Demand Draft, w