Mr. D.D. Bahuguna, Member—This is an appeal filed against the judgment and order dated 14.10.1997 passed by District Consumer Forum, Sonbhadra in complaint case No. 747/ 1997.

2. The facts of the case are that the complainant, Sri Jaiprakash Singh, was appointed as a three-language teacher in Ucch Pradhamik Vidyalaya, Ghourahara, Distt. Sonbhadra on 1.7.1987. The institution was upgraded in 1993 and the Government grant was also made admissible to the institution which included the grant for the enhanced salary of the complainant, but the complainant was deprived of the additional salary admissible to him and when the opposite party did not pay admissible salary, as available to the three-language teacher of the upgraded institutions, he filed a complaint before the learned District Forum.

3. The learned District Forum, after hearing both the parties, allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay to the complainant the salary entitled to him.

4. Aggrieved against this order, the appellant has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the learned District Forum.

5. We have gone through the judgment passed by the District Forum and other relevant documents placed on file. We have also heard the arguments of Mr. R.K. Gupta, Counsel for the appellant and Mr. M.H. Khan, learned Counsel for the respondent. In the memo of appeal it has been contended that the appeal was not maintainable before the District Forum under Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant does not come within the definition of consumer under Sections 2(1)(d) and 2(1)(o). Under the circumstances the orders passed by the District Consumer Forum was not valid. It has also been stated that the educational institution in question does not get the Government grant and whatever salary is admissible to the complainant is being paid to him. We agree with the views of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act lays down that a consumer is a person who buys goods for consideration or hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid. Section 2(1)(o) defines service of any description which is made available to the potential user and includes the provisions of facilities in connection with banking, financing, transport, processing and supply of energy, boarding and lodging, entertainment, etc. The service does not include the service under a contract of personal service.

6. In the instant case Sri Jaiprakash Singh is employed as teacher in the institution of the appellant and the terms of employment cannot be adjudicated in the Consumer Fora. The complainant should have gone to the authorities of Education Department such as Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Director of Education and to the Service Tribunal for redressal of his grievances. In the circumstances, the orders passed by the learned District Forum is bad in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside.

ORDER

The appeal is allowed and the order and judgment passed by the learned District Forum dated 14.10.1997 in complaint case No. 747 of 1997 is set aside.

No order as to the cost.

Let copy be made available to the parties as per rules.

Appeal allowed.