PER S.K. NAIK, MEMBER

            Respondent, Lila Ram was employed as a driver in the Public Works Department of Government of Haryana.  Post retirement, his retiral benefits  were allegedly not paid to him in time.  He, therefore, filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon.  District Forum entertained the complaint and CPA No.1136/4-11-1997 was decided on 30.4.98.  Operative part of the order of the District Forum reads as under :-

“We have heard the parties.  By this date all his retirement gains stand paid but with delay.  The payments were demand and dates mentioned below :-

The pension has not yet been released.  Thus it is ordered that the respondent shall pay interest 15% p.a. on the aforementioned dues from 24.12.96 (the date of retirement) till the date of payment.”

Aggrieved thereupon, the opposite party i.e. State of Haryana filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana, Chandigarh which was disposed of by the State Commission on 31.8.99 when none of the parties was present before it.  Vide the said order, the State Commission reduced the rate of interest from 15% to 12% for the delayed period of payment of         retiral  benefits to Shri Lila Ram.

It is this order of the State Commission that the State of Haryana has assailed in this revision petition.

Learned counsel for the State of Haryana, Shri Manjit Singh, Advocate has contended that the orders passed by fora below are on the face of it, illegal as the complainant being a Government Servant would not fall under the definition of a Consumer as defined in Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act., 1986.  As a Government employee, retiral benefits are paid as per the service conditions and regulations, for the resolution of any dispute/complaint there on the appropriate forum was the State Administrative Tribunal.  Learned counsel contends that while this plea had been taken before the District Forum as well as the State Commission, the same has neither been considered nor discussed in their orders.  Moreover, when the payments of the retiral  benefits have already been made, as stated in the order of the District Forum itself, there is no justification for the imposition of a penalty in the form of interest on the alleged ground of delay for which the complainant himself was responsible. The counsel, therefore, submits that the order having been passed without jurisdiction are void, ab-initio  and need to be set aside. 

Ms. Surekha Raman, Amicus Curiae defending the case of the respondent/complainant while admitting that the dispute pertains only to the payment of interest for the period of delay has made an attempt to justify the jurisdiction of the fora below by referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Bhavani (Manu/SC/2084/2008) and has contended that the complainant, too would fall within the definition of a consumer.

We have gone through the judgment of the Supreme Court referred to by Ms. Surekha Raman, Amicus Curiae.  The ruling therein pertains to whether a contributor to the Employee’s Provident Fund would fall within the definition of a consumer.  It was in that context that the Apex Court has ruled that a member of EPF scheme is  a consumer.  The case in hand  pertains to the retiral benefits of a State Government Servant and, therefore, he would not be covered under the definition of a consumer under  Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the C.P. Act., 1986.  The fora below, therefore, have wrongly entertained the complaint.

During the course of argument, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant has also contended that the complainant had approached the Civil Court for the same reliefs and his plaint has been dismissed.  He has produced a certified copy of the judgment of the Civil Judge, Gurgaon in Civil Suit No.391/99 decided on 1.6.2005 in support of his contention.  It is not necessary for us to discuss this aspect since we hold that the complainant being a Government Servant, his complaint itself was not within the jurisdiction of the fora below. 

Resultantly, the revision petition is allowed.  Orders passed by State Commission as well as District Forum are quashed and set aside.  Under the circumstances of the case,  parties are left to bear their own cost.